HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-10-25 Support Documentation Town Council Work Sessionl~,
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL
WORK SESSION
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 25, 1988
1:00 p.m.
AGENDA
1. Town Council/Planning and Environmental Commission Joint Meeting
A. World Championships Update
B. Town-wide Landscape Plan
C. Discussion of Draft Ordinance, an ordinance amending Chapter
18.71 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail to provide that
single family dwellings which are totally removed and replaced
shall be entitled to be considered for additional gross
residential floor area according to the terms of said Chapter;
and setting forth details in regard thereto.
D. Hockey Banner Issue
2. Discussion of Information Booth Expansion Bid
3. Information Update
4. Other
5. Executive Session - Personnel Matters
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL.
WORK SESSION
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 25, 1988
1:00 p.m.
EXPANDED AGENDA
1:00 1. Town Council/Planning and Environmental Commission Joint
Meeting
Items to be discussed:
Bob Krohn A. World Championships Update
B. Town-wide landscape plan
Peter Patten C. Discussion of revisions to the 250 square foot ordinance
D. Hockey banner issue
Action Requested of Council: Discussion consisting of
comments and questions for each item. Provide direction to
staff as necessary.
Background Rationale:
A. We feel it is important for the PEC/Council to receive
monthly updates on the progress of the preparations for
the big event.
B. Receive update on in-progress Town-wide landscape plan
from staff and consultant.
C. Council has asked the ordinance be revised to address
demolition/rebuild proposals. See enclosed draft of the
ordinance revision. Comment and provide direction.
D. Merv Lapin has requested, on behalf of the Vail Jr.
Hockey Club, to hang a banner over Bridge Street
announcing all Friday and Saturday night hockey games of
the Vail Express. Staff has denied the request due to
it not meeting our past interpretation of a community
event (to hang a banner, the occasion must qualify as a
community event). The decision was appealed to DRB and
they approved the request with some conditions and a
direction to examine the definition of community event.
This warrants PEC/Council discussion to provide
direction to staff.
4:00 2. Discussion of Information Booth Expansion Bid
Action Requested of Council: Accept/reject bid from
Colorado First Construction in Silverthorne to expand the
Vail Transportation Center information booth.
Background Rationale: Only one bid was received for this
project in the amount of $58,317. This is over the top
budget amount of $50,000 and does not include the floor
covering and furnishings which are $8,540 additional.
4:20 3. Information Update
Ron Phillips
4:25 4. Other
4:35 5. Executive Session - Personnel Matters
Background Rationale: Discussion of evaluations of Council
employees - Town Manager, Town Attorney, and Municipal Judge
F ~
' DRAFT ORDINANCE - FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
ORDINANCE N0.
Series of 1988
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 18.71 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE
TOWN OF VAIL TO PROVIDE THAT SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS WHICH ARE
TOTALLY REMOVED AND REPLACED SHALL BE ENTITLED TO BE CONSIDERED FOR
ADDITIONAL GROSS RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA ACCORDING TO THE TERMS OF
SAID CHAPTER; AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO.
WHEREAS, the Town Council wishes to specify that Single Family Dwellings that
have been completely removed and replaced shall be entitled to be considered for
additional GRFA pursuant to the terms of Chapter 18.71 of the Municipal Code of the
Town of Vail.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL,
COLORADO:
1. Section 18.71.010 is hereby amended to read as follows:
18.71.010 Purpose
The purpose of this Chapter is to provide an inducement for the upgrading
of SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS AND DWELLING UNITS '
+~,.~+„~°~ which have been in existence within the Town of Vail for a period of at
least five (5) years by permitting the addition of up to two hundred fifty (250)
square feet of gross residential floor area ("GRFA") to SUCH SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS
AND DWELLING UNITS ~~ea~g ~-~~s ~° °°;~ °+N~~~+~~~°~, provided the criteria set
forth in this Chapter are met. This Chapter does not assure each SINGLE FAMILY
DWELLING OR dwelling unit located within the Town of Vail an additional two hundred
fifty (250) square feet,. and proposals for any additions hereunder shall be reviewed
closely with respect to site planning, impact on adjacent properties, and applicable
Town of Uail development standards. Additional GRFA allowed under this provision
shall be granted to any SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND dwelling unit only once.
UPGRADING OF A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING OR A DWELLING UNIT UNDER THIS CHAPTER SHALL
INCLUDE ADDITIONS THERETO OR RENOVATIONS THEREOF, AND IN REGARD TO SINGLE FAMILY
SWELLINGS, THE COMPLETE REMOVAL OF THE BUILDING AND ITS FOUNDATION AND THE
REPLACEMENT THEREOF WITH A NEW FOUNDATION AND BUILDING.
2. Section 18.71.020 is hereby amended to read as follows:
18.71.020 Single. Family, Primary/Secondary and Two Family Residential
Dwellings
Any SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING OR dwelling unit IN A TWO FAMILY DWELLING not
restricted by the Town of Vail to housing for full time employees of the Upper Eagle
Valley shall be
eligible for additional GRFA not to exceed a maximum of 250 square feet of GRFA per
SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING OR TWO FAMILY dwelling unit in addition to the existing GRFA
or the allowable GRFA for the site. Before such additional GRFA can be granted, the
SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING OR dwelling unit shall meet the following criteria: ,
A. At lease five years must have passed from the date the SINGLE FAMILY
DWELLING OR TWO FAMILY dwelling unit was issued a temporary certificate of occupancy
or a minimum of six years must have passed from the date the original building
permit was issued for the construction of the dwelling unit.
B. The SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING OR dwelling unit shall have received its
final certificate of occupancy.
C. Proposals for the utilization of the additional GRFA under this
provision shall comply with all Town of Vail zoning requirements and applicable
development standards. If a variance is required for a proposal, it shall be
approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission pursuant to Chapter. 18.62
before an application is made in accordance with this Chapter. ANY SINGLE FAMILY
DWELLING WHICH IS TOTALLY REMOVED SHALL BE REPLACED WITH ANY ,PRIOR EXISTING
NONCONFORMING USES OR DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF NONCONFORMING
GRFA, TOTALLY ELIMINATED.
D. Adjacent property owners and owners of dwelling units on the same lot
as the applicant shall be notified of any application under this Chapter that
involves any external alterations to an existing structure. Notification procedures
shall be as outlined in Section 18.66.080 of the zoning code.
E. If any proposal provides for the conversion of a garage or enclosed
parking area to GRFA, such conversion will not be allowed unless a new garage or
enclosed parking area is also proposed. Plans for a new garage or enclosed parking
area shall accompany the application under this Chapter, and shall be constructed
concurrently with the conversion.
F. Any increase in parking requirements as set forth in Chapter 18.52 due
to any GRFA addition pursuant to this Chapter shall be met by the applicant.
G. All proposals under this Section shall be required to conform to the
Design Review Guidelines set forth in Chapter 18.54 of the Uail Municipal Code. Any
SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING OR dwelling unit for which an addition is proposed shall be
required to meet the minimum Town of Vail landscaping standards as set forth in
Chapter 18.54 of the Uail Municipal Code. Before any additional GRFA may be
permitted in accordance with this Chapter, the staff shall review the maintenance
-2-
and upkeep of the existing SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING OR dwelling unit and site,
including landscaping to determine whether they comply with the Design Review
Guidelines. No temporary certificate of occupancy shall be issued for any expansion
of GRFA pursuant to this Chapter until all required improvements to the site and
structure have been completed as required.
H. The provisions of this Section are applicable only to GRFA additions
to single dwelling units. No pooling of gross residential floor area shall be
allowed in single family DWELLING two family ~^^~~^^+"'
dwellings ~. No application for additional GRFA shall request more than 250
square feet of gross residential floor area per SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING OR dwelling
unit.
3. Section 18.71.030 of the Vail Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
18.71.030 Multi-Family Dwellings
Any dwelling unit in a multi-family dwelling ~^ +~,+ +^~m ;^ a^~;^^a ~"
`T~~t~-e~-1-8.~:~9~--e~-t~i^ ",~' M~~^~^~^,' r^~^, shall be eligible for additional GRFA
not to exceed a maximum of 250 square feet of GRFA in addition to the existing GRFA
or the allowable GRFA for the site. Any application for such additional GRFA must
meet the following criteria:
A. At least five years must have passed form the date the BUILDING
;rwas issued a temporary certificate of occupancy or a minimum of six years
must have passed from the date the original building permit was issued for the
construction of the BUILDING.
B. Proposals for the utilization of the additional GRFA shall comply with
all Town of Vail zoning requirements and applicable development standards. If a
variance is required for the additional GRFA, it shall be approved by the Planning
and Environmental Commission. pursuant to Chapter 18.62 before an application is made
in accordance with this Chapter.
C. The BUILDING °+~~~ has received its final certificate of
occupancy.
D. Portions of existing enclosed parking areas may be converted to GRFA
under this ordinance if there is no loss of existing enclosed parking spaces in said
enclosed parking area.
E. Any increase in parking requirements due to any GRFA addition pursuant
to this Chapter shall be met by the applicant.
-3-
F. All proposals under this Section shall be reviewed for compliance with
the Design Review Guidelines as set forth in Chapter 18.54 of the Vail Municipal
Code. Existing properties for which additional GRFA is proposed shall be required
to meet minimum Town of Uail landscaping standards as set forth in Section 18.54 of
the Vail Municipal Code. General maintenance and upkeep of existing BUILDINGS
°*~~N=e~s~and sites, including the multi-family dwellings, landscaping or site
improvements (i.e., trash facilities, berming to screen surface parking, etc.) shall
be reviewed by the staff after the application is made for conformance to said
Design Review Guidelines. This review shall only take place for the first
application for additional GRFA in any multi-family dwelling unit. No temporary
certificate of occupancy shall be issued for any expansion of GRFA pursuant to this
Chapter until all required improvements to the multi-family dwelling site and
BUILDING;z-have been completed as required.
G. If the proposed addition of GRFA is for a dwelling unit located in a
condominium project, a letter approving such addition from the condominium
association shall be required at the time the application is submitted.
H. No deck or balcony enclosures, or any exterior additions or
alterations to multi-family dwellings with the exception of windows, skylights, or
other similar modifications shall be allowed under this Chapter.
I. The provisions of this Section are applicable only to GRFA additions
to individual dwelling units. No "pooling" of GRFA shall be allowed in multi-family
dwellings. No application for additional GRFA shall request more than 250 square
feet of gross residential floor area per dwelling unit.
4. Paragraph 18.71.040c is hereby amended to read as follows:
18.71.040 Procedure
C. If the Community Development Department staff determines that the site
for which the application was submitted is in compliance with Town of Vail
landscaping and site improvement standards, the applicant shall proceed as follows:
1) Application for GRFA additions which involve no change to the
exterior of a BUILDING °+~~-e-shall be reviewed by the Community Development
Department staff.
2) Applications for GRFA additions involving exterior changes to a
BUILDING ~}~re-shall be reviewed by the staff and the Design Review Board in
accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18.54.
5. Chapter 18.71 is hereby amended with the addition of Section 18.71.050 to
read as follows:
-4-
18.71.050 Application
In the event the owner of any single family dwelling made application for
additional GRFA and was denied under prior Ordinance 4, Series of 1985, because the
existing foundation of the single family dwelling was not being retained, such
single family dwelling shall be deemed to be in existence and the owner thereof
shall be entitled to apply for additional GRFA hereunder for such single family
dwelling regardless of whether or not such single family dwelling and its foundation
were destroyed or voluntarily demolished prior to the owner thereof making
application for and/or receiving additional GRFA for such structure hereunder.
6. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this
Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance; and the Town Council hereby
declares it would have passed this Ordinance, and each part, section, subsection,
sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more
parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid.
7. The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this Ordinance
is necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Uail and
the inhabitants thereof.
8. The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provision of the Municipal
Code of the Town of Vail as provided in this Ordinance shall not affect any right
which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the
effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or
proceedings as commenced under or by virtue of the provision repealed or repealed
and reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or
any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein.
INTRODUCED, READ AND APPROVED ON FIRST READING this day of ,
1988, and a public hearing shall be held on this Ordinance on the day of
1988, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Vail
Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado.
Ordered published in full this day of
. 1988.
Kent R. Rose, Mayor
ATTEST:
Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk
-5-
INTRODUCED, READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED
this day of 1988•
Kent R. Rose, Mayor
ATTEST:
Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk
-6-
MEMORANDUM
TO: Ron Phillips
FROM: Charlie Wick ~~~
DATE: October 21, 1988
RE: Business Survey Regarding the Marketing of Vail
The Marketing Committee reviewed three business surveys and
liked Eric Affeldt's the best with some changes. A copy of the
modified survey is attached.
Jim Gibson also asked me today if it was appropriate for the
Marketing Committee to call all of the businesses regarding the
survey. This may be a question the Council wants to address. I
think it is a good idea so the details of the program can be fully
understood by the business community. At least we would know the
responses to the survey would come from more than a modicum of
understanding.
Also, I would request that the survey responses be in on the
eleventh of November rather than the fifteenth. We could then
have the responses tallied for Council work session on the
fifteenth and have an ordinance proposed for first reading the
evening of the fifteenth if Council wished to proceed to an
ordinance reading.
tawo ui rai
75 south frontage road
vail, Colorado 81657
(303)476-7000
office of the mayor
VA.IL 1989
October 21, 1°88
Dear Business Owner/Manager:
Recently an independent Marketing Committee recommended that the Vail
Town Council expand the current business license to generate funds for
promoting our community. In general, the recommendation calls for all
businesses to pay into a marketing promotion fund to be administered by
an independent Marketing Committee. The intent of these funds is to
increase Vail's business especially in our non-skiing months. The new
license formula differentiates between geographic locations and assigns
different fees to different business types.
A marketing program will be in place for three summers. The program's
effectiveness will then be evaluated through business surveys and other
methods to determine the program's continuation.
The Vail Town Council must vote by ordinance to expand your business
license. Please help the Council in this decision by indicating your
approval/disapproval of this program. Please return your survey by
November 11 to the Town in the enclosed addressed envelope.
Thank you,
Vail Town Council
Proceed with the marketing proposal. / / Yes / / No
Please check your appropriate Business Category(s):
LodgingjProperty Mgmt. / / Professional / / Financial / /
Food and Beverage / / Service / / Construction / /
Retail / ! Real Estate / / Other ; /
Comments:
~o%/~~'
THE DENVER POST
Wall St balks at limit on Colo. taxes.
By Henry Dubroff
Denver Post Business Writer
A proposed constitutional
amendment severely restricting
the ability of Colorado govern-
ments to raise taxes is giving the
state's already tarnished image a
bruising on Wall Street.
Goldman Sachs & Co., one of the
biggets New York underwriters,
dropped out of the bidding fora $50
~;~ million Metro Denver Sewer Dis-
trict offering this week, citing
"concerns" about Amendment No.
6 on the Nov. 8 election ballot.
Amendment 6 would require a
public, vote on virtually any tax in- .
crease, and would repeal any tax
increases appr^~~ed in 1988 unless
approved by voters. Goldman,
Sachs & Co. officials said they in-
terpreted the amendment to in-
clude incremental sewer-fee in-
creases needed to repay the bonds.
Other Denver bond underwriters
fear passage of the amendment
will hurt bond ratings across the
state., and force bond-insurance
companies to cancel their policies.
Lower credit ratings will force
towns, counties and state agencies
to pay millions of dollars a year in
higher interest charges on newly
. issued debt.
"Amendment 6 would really poi-
son the environment," for future
bond issues, said Alan Charnes,
Denver director of revenue. Den-
ver businesses are raising a war
chest to fight the measure.
The underwriters are also con-
cerned because the closing date for
the bond issue is after the Nov. 8
election.
After Goldman Sachs withdrew
from a syndicate led by Morgan
Guaranty Bank, the only bidder for
the bonds was First Boston Corp.,
which could not be reached for
comment.
First Boston got the bid, but "it's
fair to assume there's been an im-
pact.' on the price of the bonds be-
cause of concern about Amend-
ment 6, said Alex Brown at the
Denver investment firm Kirchner,-
Moore & Co.
Amendment 6 also would restrict
property tax levies to 1 percent of
their assessed value, a measure
that could have a broad impact on
the ability of cities and counties'to'
issue the "general obligation"
bonds that pay for schools and bas-
is services.
The complications -that would be
imposed by Amendment 6 come at
a time when the Securities and Ex-
change Commission has proposed
tougher standards for underwriters'
bringing municipal deals.
The standards could increase the
legal liability for bond firms that
brought deals to market which
were later sidelined by Amend-
ment 6 complications.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD AGENDA
OCTOBER 19, 1988
3:00 P.M.
SITE VISITS
1:30 P.M.
1. Ford Park Parking Lot
Motion-Saute Second-Leary
5-0 approved July 1st meeting.
1 2. Gruidel Re-Roof
Lot 3, Casolar
Motion-Leary Second-Saute Consent
5-0 approved.
3 3. Ricks Cafe Sign
Lionshead Parking Structure
Consent
4. Kennelly Color
Lot 3, Block 1, Vail Village 1st
Tabled to November 2nd meeting
5 5. Ferdows Residence
Lot 3, Block 4, Bighorn 5th
Consent
2 6. Haskins Addition
Lot 4, Block D, Vail Ridge
Motion-Sante Second-Leary VOTE 5-0
Approved as submitted and discussed.
7. Mill Creek Court Building Facade
Amendments
Consent, Ned Gwathmey abstained.
4 8. Gramshammer Temporary Austrian Ski House for the
1989 World Championships, Vail Village
Withdrawn
MEMBERS PRESENT
Kathy Warren
Ned Gwathmey
Roy Sante
Dan Leary
Pam Hopkins
STAFF APPROVALS:
MEMBERS ABSENT
Bryan Hobbs
Berkowitz Residence small addition - L 2, B 1, Vail Village 1st
Hall's Residence stair repair - L 10, B E, West Vail
Paul Johnston Resid. remodel - L 2, B 2, Vail Village 1st
Zadeh Deck Addition & Stair - L 2, Gore Creek Meadows 1st
Vail 21 Rooftop Spa (new)
October 12, 1988
Town Council
Town Of Vail
75 S. Frontage Road
Vail, CO 81657
Dear Council Member:
After seeing the business boom brought on by the World Wide Church of God
recently, I am reminded that if it were not for the Dobson Ice Arena, this
group would probably not even come to Vail. There are many other large groups
with somewhat more sophisticated meeting needs who would think about bringing
their business to Vail if only we had an appropriate facility for them.
I am resigned to the voters' message that the Congress Hall proposed last year
was too expensive. However, I believe that for a fraction of the expense.
defined at that time, we could make Dobson an attractive option for many
meeting planners. I urge the council to pursue this course of action, as I
understood was being done several months ago.
With that in mind, I would also like to encourage the council to refrain from
turning the Dobson Ice Arena operation over to the VMRD. Although it has had
only limited meeting use in the past, I am still hopeful that the ice rink
will be converted into an effective, part-time convention hall. If it_were
run by those admittedly more interested in recreational uses, the chance of
that becoming reality would be eliminated.
Thanks very much for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Robert Levine
General Manager
680 West Lionshead Place Vail, Colorado 81657 (303) 476-2471
. ~.
wilds u~ resorts ho . _
pes . ~~ ~ ~ . Where they _-
~a°~ ; come from
~ `:
_
By DON KNOX _ _ , ; . :
_.
Nine states accourited
Rocky Mountain News Staff Writer fOf abOUt tW0-thlfdS Of ail
sA number of large Colorado ski resorts report a blizzard ` 70°~o the visitors to Colorado
Ski resorts during the
of .early bookings this year, boosting hopes for a robust _
87
1986
winter season ~ -
Season. -
Vail, Crested Butte and Winter Park officials say advance
lodging reservations have jumped at least 50% over this 1000-_.__.__T
time last year. Keystone, Steamboat Springs and Copper
Mountain officials also are reporting gains. _
"It looks very good for us at this point," said Joni Crask, ,
director of reservations for .the Vail Resort Association,
which has seen a 73% increase in early bookings -- from d
?,500 guest naghts Last year to 13,003 as of yesterday. `b' ~~ , ' i~ a~
Bob Gillen, a spokesman for Crested Butte Mountain o~ fi~ CJ a,
_ ,.resort, reported a 52.9% increase in early bookings. ~ ,~~'' ~~ k~ ',
- Crested Butte's response has been especially high .from Oak ~ ~
New York and Los Angeles, which "weren't even in our top
See RESORTS, Page 60
_ - i ~`
i
LISA GILBERT/Rocky Mountain News
__ Vl d ~ C .?~ •'" .O +' r '>y. Rr ~'• ~ d ~+ ~ •, v,•,_. y^,x • CL+-' C ~ ~ .--~ ~ Ds Caa y % ~a C ~ ++ O C O
:., p G7 ."1 ++ t0 "C-... p s O ,C O •^ ' . p y ... d C7 O C ~ ~ .
(~ C .C ACC wUO~CN~' Cc"~a0 Ri f+ yw.,..,yACC OCO Qa a~CO
~o~.a o," s ~'o~~~•c.oy.a~ a°G.>tiooo ~~ ~`~~°'°'«~;:. ,~co~ v~E=y'
$8~~~ c,o~co.ywo~Eo>~y o°'o~c.ocdo c o~~°~~+>a ~w~a.d o`°~~C.
c6 w +;, d m 'a `' ~ ° ,o `~ ,,, o c p• ~a ~ d Z v, o ~' 'o C C~ C .., o c. a> d .~ •~ y R.; «3 d ..
yh0 1^. 'd~+:.~i•~C V U13O.Y. CO~U.C~~hO~"G OOcC~„~:Jdy ~V~y q~'JOa~bO~
rn C ~ +~ ~ O 47 w (~ O co ,a; ~+ ~ cts m .., O ... c0 ... t, :~ 'O m U m ~ h ~ m ,,,, c0 ~ .r C .:
~~G, Oy,.O.,w'oao'°o~,0.3w~C~C yVai nt v~O i0„+~ ~~3~ ~O""-'~ V
o .~ ~, .,~ a~ .~ ac .. ~, d C ~ o ,., G. a~ c, ao ~ C ~ so, ~ ~o v~ d
:c c o~ _ a ~. o ~ .,.. ~
O cC ca s ^ . ~ O Da c0 r..~ ~ O d O d Q" " C .Q t0.. tv CL't7 N C O Ri O ..q. d ~+ i. crf ~ .L" a+ .
a3 ~, ~,,, ,C CG rn O $ ~ w, ~ ., c6 cC O .a d ~ cC V ~....
h .a i1. 3 ~ U C..C O ~' ..a C c4. ~' y s0. ^' ~" O V 7 ~.~' O .0.. ~ I :+a C G vi S'' ' ~ ti y w
C ~ rA f.. O fA c0 +~ •~ '~ y O ~ "' .C y C ~ r' y h0 .12 O O C • ~ m O csf .p ~ ~ a' ~ - y ~ c. ~ •^ ~ ~.
y •"' y ¢, o ai 3 v; °' ~ a ~ 3 ~ a' ~ v ~ °' c ~' 3 I °o c ti C ~ ~ v iv ~ .b ca °: ae .~ a .°..~~ N ~ a ~ `" 'ca
c3. vOi 7 O +-~ „ys O! •a'd ~ Gam! .C O U y O ..., O O V +,;, ,•,'~~ ,O b\ 00 O O V ~ ~ C !2 c3 Fd..rc0a G y d C .V. d F y 00
O O O cC p ao ti C .., y Z y > ~ `-+ y ,~" .sC t3 ^' M pp C •O ~ H a c3 D, vi ~ O 'D ... m '~.. ~ ~
MM . d O U a'fl O ~ N C aC O. c4 O O i.. s>. c~ O c0 ..~ d h0 c6 tip U E tV ~ ie! ~ ~ w 3 O ~a ~'
W h i;~~ ~~.~ C ~~..,w ~ ~ O >.0.. p c..Q~ vl O.C.O.. ~''D G_O 'Ja I C' y O O ~ C fr C~~„ ca ^' y•'•'.,C~
~ ~ •-' .~' ai ~ " ~ ~ ~ id y ac ~ °' y o co'« o ~ `' ~ ~ ca ~ v ~ d s •~ o ~ `~ n sc°. y ~ c a~ .^o, .° o 0 3 ~
Q) CQb~ i i; °uu ~E-~~ a•~ a`~i `~''~3 ao a[i ~ c~ ~:d d w~ ~ ~ ~.~ 3 v`II, c`~os~« d ° °ti° =" d y u U.~ o" ~ o
~ ~°a.Ecuoc Uti>u$v~ ~v,av°',c 3~i~`n~R'a ~.°•: ayiv°1i~oyU:° .o3iu Eb:yE~
(d
^ ~ ~ •o ~ • o s. ea c. c.
r1 ~ CC ~ LL,w .yi iv cC ~L. Ri •L7 O O .C
a.. ai d. ~.~o~; a°,~~c.~~U
,.~ coy...v3y ~,
~ c ,a ~ i. ~ 'u a; a~ oo c C
v1 CQ VJ ., .•, O ..., U ~ O .
•~ (On ~ ?E (ti O y0y L' ~i'''O ~ ~ d x6,' c{S Uf ~ ~" ~ N
_I ~ C ~b chC ~ y y~ 4Ca.C+ ~ C 0~+.+r''
~ y, O ~.. O y y ,C cs G .., w tY] a.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Ron Phillips
Vail ;Town Council
FROM: Charlie Wick
DATE: October 25, 1988
RE: Financial Impacts of Amendment 6 (Tax Limitations)
Amendment 6, if adopted, will impact the Town in various ways.
Amendment 6, under close analysis, is poorly written legislation.
Impacts to the Town are as follows:
o Real Estate Transfer Tax: Amendment 6 repeals existing
transfer taxes on real property and prohibits their future
enactment. The Town has $8,583,538 in total debt service
with annual payments of $932,000 pledged against Real
Estate Transfer Taxes. The elimination of this tax will
severely impact Vail's operational and financial plans.
Major service level cuts will have to be made if monies
are .diverted from operations and capital .sources to pay
for this debt service.
o Amendment 6 will eliminate the 1989 mill levy increase for
street improvements since it was not voter approved.
o Amendment 6 may eliminate the increased business license
fee for marketing and the new parking structure fee
increase although we may be O.K. with this since these
increases were adopted in 1988.
o Reduces all future increases in licenses, permits and fees
to the net change in the Denver C.P.I. or it requires a
vote of the people if beyond the C.P.I.
o Requires all debt (which I assume includes refinancing,
lease purchases and short term borrowing) to be approved
by 2/3 of the voters. (34% of the voters could control
the majority).
(The refinancing of existing debt is an example of how
poorly drafted this legislation is. Refinancing is done
in most cases to reduce debt service payments by taking
advantage of lower interest rates. Because of what may be
short windows of opportunity to have a refinancing make
financial sense referring it to the voters may be totally
impractical.)
AMENDMENT 6 MEMO
OCTOBER 25, 1988
PAGE 2
o Limits the maximum annual property tax on residential
property to one percent (1%) of the last assessed market
value. An issue throughout the State is how will taxes be
fairly re-apportioned to those local governments which
will have lower revenue from the property tax source.
o Major Capital Project Needs: Because of the 2/3 positive
vote required on all new debt issues it is improbable that
Vail will be fortunate enough to issue bonds to finance
the construction of new capital projects.
CRW/ds
CM L
~ Colorado Municipal League
_ ~~~ 1660 Lincoln Street, Suite 2100
Denver, Colorado 80264
' (303) 831-6411
To: Various Municipal Officials
From: Kenneth G. Bueche, Executive Director
Samuel D. Mamet, Associate Director
Re: Amendment 6 Update
Date: October 2U, 1988
Introduction
The purpose of this memorandum is to provide you and your municipality with
the most current information on Amendment 6, the so-called "Taxpayer's Bill of
Rights," and what you can do now to inform your constituents about its
implications in the remaining days before the November 8th election. .This
memo updates and revises our October 14 Newsletter article on the amendment.
Amendment 6 will appear on the November 8 statewide ballot and the rotes cast
on it will be counted. Effective October 13th, legal protests to the
amendment woere dropped. This should remove arty questions still lingering as
to whether or not the ames~ent will be on the ballot.
The League's Executive Board unanimously voted to oppose the amendment at its
AugustL4th meeting. The CdtiL staff has been disseminating information to
municipal officials on how the amendment would affect cities and towns and
their citizens. The campaign against Amendment 6 is being led by a coalition
called "Citizens for Representative Government." The campaign's theme is "Get
The Full Story - Then Vote NO on 6." There are three enclosures with t11is
memorandum: a one page flyer against the amendment (we have extra copies if
you want them); our detailed analysis which explains same of the specific
municipal implications of Amendment 6; and a few recent editorials written
against Amendment 6 that are useful for distribution.
Principal Arg~mments Against the Amendment
* -Jobs and economic growth.
Colorado's top priority is economic development and creating new
jobs. The passage of Amendment 6 would be the death knell for
these and similar efforts. Few new businesses are going to
locate -- nor will existing businesses prosper -- in a state
which refuses to support its schools, maintain its roads, and
fund its police and prisons.
* Disasters and emergencies
One of government's chief obligations is to respond to disasters
and emergencies. But Amendment 6 would encourage people to
t
second guess the emergency response in an election held months
la-ter. It's all right there in Section 3 of the amendment.
'This P'Ionday morning quarterbacking is ill-conceived and will
cause great difficulty a.t the moment when quick action is
essential.
A tax rollback Colorado can't afford.
The proponents are trying to sell Amendment 6 as a tax
limitation. But it is really a tax rollback of massive
proportions. All around Colorado, public budgets are stretched
and stressed. If we rollback taxes now, critical services will
be at risk and critical needs will go unmet. No one likes taxes
or wants to pay them. But taxes and spending in Colorado are
under control. In 19Bh, Colorado ranked 40th out of the 5U
states in combined state and local tax collections. Further
rollbacks will have a devastating effect nn public schools, as
well as on law enforcement and public safety.
A massive tax increase on farmers and ranchers.
Amendment 6 would deal a crippling blow to farmers and ranchers,
and to all of rural Colorado which is already struggling through
tough times. By requiring that all property be assessed at
market value, the amendment would increase property taxes on
agricultural land by a huge amount.
It's inflexible, impractical and extreme.
Amendment 6 goes way beyond tax elections. It would also
require a vote on many fee increases at any level of
government. Everything from fishing licenses- to marriage
licenses to the towel fee at the high school gym could wind up
being voted on in an election. Ballots could contain literally
hundreds of such items. while government would operate with
greatly reduced efficiency and effectiveness.
The principle of representative government.
The principle of representative government has worked well in
this country for over 200 years. Ede elect officials to make
complex decisions about taxes and services, and then hold them
accountable. Amendment 6 is a major change to this system.
Other vital public services would also suffer.
The tax rollback and funding crisis would have grave
consequences for other public services on which the public
places considerable value. Such services at risk include
emergency medical care, public hospitals, job training, held for
the disadvantaged, and programs for senior citizens.
-2-
anent 6 - Imuact on State and Local Revenues and Services
N Citizens must evaluate how Amendment 6 will affect services important to
them. Here are same facts concerning reduction in revernies which would
otherwise be available to finance state and local government services:
* The Colorado Legislative Council staff has estimated a $128.3
million annual state individual income tax revenue loss from the
requirement that the state income tax rate can't exceed 9U% of
the 1987 individual rate.
* The (:olorado Legislative Council staff has estimated a $29.5
million annual state corporate income tax revenue loss from the
requirement that all taxable income must be taxed at one rate.
* The rollback in residential property tax revenues to meet the 1%
cap for residential property will substantially reduce local
government revenues The Colorado Legislative Cotmcil staff
estimates this loss to exceed $267 million annually statewide,
including over $160 million in lost school district revenue.
* Repeal of all municipal real estate transfer taxes will reduce
tax revenues directly in the municipalities of Aspen, Avon,
Crested Butte, Glendale, Gypsum, Rifle, Snowmass Village,
Telluride, Vail, and Winter Park.
* The $25U per personal property schedule tax credit will
substantially reduce state or local revenues, depending upon
which level of government is .required to fund those credits.
This annual loss has been estimated to exceed $59 million.
* The repeal of all 1988 tax increases ~~ill reduce revenues for
affected jurisdictions. You need to examine your own municipal
finances for the past year to ascertain whether this repeal may
affect your 1989 budget.
* .The 3~ "reserve" requirement will reduce allowable expenditures
below revenue levels, making even less money available to
provide services.
Campaign Effort Against Amendment 6
"Citizens For Representative Government" is located at 1177 Grant Street,
Denver, Colorado 8U2.U3. The phone number for the group is (3U3) 863-0906.
Phil Fox and Frank Miles are staffing the office. The campaign's theme
against Amendment 6 is, "Get The Full Story - Vote NO on 6."
Here are some of the organizations involved with this group: Colorado
Education Association, Colorado Association of Commerce and Industry, Colorado
Association of School Boards, Colorado Municipal Bond Dealers Association,
Colorado Association of School Executives, Colorado AFL-CIO, Special Districts.
Association of Colorado, Colorado Farm Bureau, Colorado Counties, Inc., and
the League. NLIInerous other organizations also oppose Amendment 6, including,
-3-
but not limited to: the Colorado 1,eag~ie of Women Voters, Colorado Common
Cause, Colorado Association of Realtors, the Colorado Association of
Hornebuilders, the Denver Chamber of Commerce, and the Colorado Senior Lobby.
Two weeks ago, governor Ramer held a press conference to express his
opposition to the Amendment. Taking part in the press conference were: House
Speaker Bev Bledsoe, Senate President Ted Strickland, State Democrat Chair
Buie Sewall, State Republican Chair Bruce Benson, Senate Minority Leader kay
Peterson, House Assistant Minority Leader Jerry Kopel, Lyle Kyle, Executive
Director of the Colorado Public Expenditures Council, and George Dibble,
President of the Colorado Association of Ccxnmerce and Industry. Additional
activity like this is expected up until November 8.
Amendment 6 - What Can You Ib Now?
It is important to remember that local government funds m~ not be spent to
support or oppose statewide ballot issues, such as Amendment 6. If you are a
municipal employee, you should insure that any time you take urging the defeat
of Amendment 6 is your personal time. In general public funds, supplies, and
facilities should not be used to urge defeat of the measure.
Here's a checklist of some things that municipal officials could da right now
about Amendment 6:
* Your City Cauncil or Town Board should pass a resolution against
Amendment 6. Try to indicate in the resolution potential
Amendment 6 impacts on your city or town.
* Elected officials are encouraged to speak out against Amendment
6 publicly at service clubs, community or neighborhood fortmms,
writing a letter to the editor, and any other appropriate
meetings or opportunities.
* Don't hesitate to respond to requests for information about
Amendment h and its impact for your city or town operations and
. services. '
* Coordinate your efforts with other concerned entities, including
but not limited to: your local PTA, .League of Women Voters
chapter, your local chamber or other business groups your
county commissioners, school board members, special districts
officials, state legislators, employee and labor groups,
community groups (like park and recreation user groups).
Consider a joint press conference expressing opposition to
Amendment 6 with these other groups and individuals. They may
be getting in touch with you to do this.
* Visit with your local editorial writers and encourage editorials
against Amendment Fi. Visit with your local media and encourage
stories about the amendment. Send us copies of any editorials
or articles about the amendment which appear in you local press.
-4-
* Work with -your local ilrban Renewal or Downtown Development
Authority and other local economic development groups, as
Amendment 6 will have profound implications for these types of
organizations.
Where legal questions arise you should consult with appropriate legal counsel
as to your activities. Municipal attorneys were sent a mid-September legal
memorandum on this point developed by League General (:ounsel Jerry Dahl.
('nnrl nsi rn
If you have any questions regarding Amendment E~, please contact Sam Mamet or
Ken Bueche at the League Office.
lnclosures
-5-
Let's look behind the cover
' at Amendment #6.
Amendment #6 is certainly attractive. It's a sales pitch which is hard
to resist. After all, who isn't in favor of "taxpayer rights"?
The backers of Amendment #6 hope that you don't look beyond their
simple slogans. But you can't judge a book by its cover.
Behind the cover of Amendment #6 is a scheme which could wreak
havoc on Colorado. The amendment is poorly drafted. It's poorly
thought out. It's the most radical tax measure ever proposed.
Get the full story on Amendment #6.
Goodbye jobs and
economic development.
Led by Governor Romer, Colorado's top priority is economic
development and new jobs. The passage of Amendment #6
would be the death knell for this effort. No new businesses are going
to locate-nor will existing businesses prosper-in a state which
refuses to maintain its roads, support its police, and invest in
its schools.
A tax rollback Colorado
can't afford.
They're trying to sell Amendment #6 as a tax limitation. lt's
really a tax rollback... of massive proportions. Look around
you. State government, local governments,. and school
districts are operating on very tight budgets. If we rollback
taxes now, critical services will be at risk and critical needs
will go unmet. Schools, roads, police protection, services for
the elderly-all will suffer.
There's no room for Monday morning quarterbacking when
dealing with disasters and emergencies.
One of government's primary responsibilities is torespond immediately to disasters and emergencies. A flood. A tornado.
Other acts of God... or man. But Amendment #6 would encourage people to second guess the emergency response in
an election months or years later. This is a Crary idea and will only cause difficulty at times when immediate action is
most needed.
Inflexible. Impractical. Extreme.
So much for the principle
of majority rule.
Limiting taxes is one thing. But Amendment #6 goes way
beyond this. It would also require a vote on any increase in
any fee at any level of government. Everything down to the
level of fishing licenses and park passes. Even the towel fee
in the high school gymnasium would need to be voted on in
a general election. How much sense does this make?
A massive tax increase on
farmers and ranchers.
Amendment #6 not only requires that all tax or fee increases be
voted on in an election. In many situations, it would require z/s
voter approval. By doing so, it would allow a minority of voters to
have their way. How's that for an extremist idea?
Whether by accident or design, Amendment #6 would deal a
crippling blow to Colorado's farmers and ranchers who are already
struggling through very tough times. It would require that all
property be assessed at market value. That would increase
property taxes on agricultural land by a huge amount.
Get the
full story.
Then vote NO on #6.
The Denver Post researched Amendment #6..
They opened the book. And read the fine print.
Here's what the Post says.
T'HE
DENVER
Pos'i'
Maurice L. Hickey, Publisher
Chuck Green, Editor
Anthony H. Campbell, Executive Editor
Jce H. Bullard, ManegingEditor
Sue F. Smith, Associate Editor
William H. Hnrnby, Senior Editor
Voice of the Rocky Mountain Empire
Tax shift is still a threat
D ECENT POLLS show public
j~ upport is dropping for pro-
posed Amendment 6, a massive
tax-shift scheme that would cut
some state taxes sharply while
triggering huge tax increases for
other citizens. But it remains a
grave threat to this state's eco-
nomic future.
Coloradans have been offered
these chocolate-covered lemons
before, most recently as Amend-
ment 4 just two years ago. Like
most "free lunch" offers, they en-
joy early popularity. But when
voters realize the havoc such fis-
cal time bombs would cause to
schools, roads, police and fire pro-
tection and other vital, services,
the tax shifts have been defeated.
This year's tax shift scheme
has been tied up In legal chal-
lenges that may not be decided
until a few days before the elec-
tion. If opponents wait to begin
fighting Amendment 6 until the
courts decide its fate, there may
not be time to expose its dangers
if it is ordered back on the ballot.
And there are many dangers in
this slapdash scheme that would
be locked into the constitution.
For openers, it actually repeals
majority rule by requiring that
many new taxes must be ap-
proved by two-thirtds of the voters
- allowing just 34 percent of the
eleMorate to overrule the majori-
ty. These and other restrictions
would make it difficult for cities
and counties to sell bonds for such
items as street improvements or
economic development projects
- and would sharply raise the in-
terest rates on the bonds that can
be sold.
Amendment 8 could also sharp-
ly increase the tax assessment on
agricultural land, crippling farm-
ers and rural schools. It would
similarly hobble the ability of
state and local governments to re-
spond to emergencies, such as the
Big Thompson flood or the 1965
flood that ravaged Denver.
Worst of all, this vague mish-
mash is a lawyer's full employ-
ment act that turns many vital
tax and budget decisions over to
the courts. If you don't like the
job your elected officials do, you
can at least vote them out of of-
fice. When was the last time you
were able to vote a lawyer out?
This assault on representative
government simply isn't justified
in a state with a documented re-
cord of fiscal conservatism. The
Colorado Public Expenditure
Council, a taxpayer watchdog, re-
ports Colorado ranked 40th lowest
among the 50 states in combined
state and local tax collections per
51,000 of personal income. Fur-
thermore, the share of Colorado's
economy that supports state and
local government services has
dropped from 19.8 percent in 1983
to 19 percent in 1988.
That's why House Speaker Bev
Bledsoe of Hugo, Senate Presi-
dent Ted Strickland and Gov. Roy
Romer have joined other politi-
cal, business, labor and civic lead-
ers in speaking out against
Amendment 8. But they need
more support.
Coloradans cannot rebuild our
prosperity by crippling rural Colo-
rado. We can't attract new jobs
by destroying the roads and
schools that industry needs. But
Coloradans can, and must, defeat
Amendment 8.
Paid for by Citizens br Representative Government. Clark Snaw, Treasurer
7777 Grant Street, Denver, Cobrado 80203, 303863-0906
Printed by volunteers.
Prepared by CML
8/17/88
Preliminary Summary and Analysis of Amendment 6
Concerning Tax Limitations
On July 6, petitions with approximately 64,000 signatures were filed with Secretary of State Natalie Meyer to place
a constitutional amendment limiting taxes on the November 8 general election ballot. Some 50,668 valid signatures are
necessary to qualify the initiative. A challenge to the sufficiency of the petitions has been filed, and it is uncertain
whether the Amendment will be qualified for the November election. The Amendment, which has been tentatively
designated as Amendment No. 6, is commonly referred to as the "TABOR" Amendment or "taxpayer's bill of
rights." The Amendment is comprehensive and applies to state government and to all units of local government.
What follows is a detailed summary of the Amendment and an analysis of its effects. The Amendment, which does
not lend itself to a brief explanation, is summarized generally in the order in which its text is written.
The Amendment:
Summary
• Applies to state government and to all local govern
ments, including home rule municipalities, and will be
effective December 31, 1988, except where otherwise
specified.
• Requires any "supplemental" state statutes to be
approved by a two-thirds vote of the members of each
house of the General Assembly.
• Authorizes individual or class action lawsuits having
judicial priority to enforce and construe its provisions.
Successful litigants are entitled to costs and attorney fees.
Any refunds due for illegal revenue are payable by the
governmental entity within 60 days with 10% annual
interest.
• Generally requires voter approval for any new tax, tax
rate increase, or other change in tax policy that causes a
net gain in tax revenue.
• Requires any election on a proposed tax increase to be
held at the state or local government's "general election"
(presumably the entity's regular election date) or, if one is
not scheduled within 12 months, on the first Tuesday in
November. Any such tax election requires notice of the
election to be mailed to each "elector residence", and the
notice must contain detailed information on the nature of
the proposal.
• Requires a corresponding reduction in tax revenue
whenever 5 % or more of new revenue is diverted from its
designated expenditure.
• Extends to all local governments the initiative and
referendum power now applicable only to municipalities.
• Includes limited exemptions from prior voter approval
for tax increases if the funds are used only for emergency
expenses and the emergency meets stated criteria. "Rev-
enue shortfalls, economic conditions, or the effects of this
amendment" are specifically excluded from treatment as
emergencies.
• Requires any emergency tax increase to be approved at
the next available election date, and requires its proceeds
to be refunded if the voters fail to ratify the tax increase..
• Requires the state and local governments after July 1,
1989, to reserve and retain at least 3% of their budget for
declared emergencies, with "emergencies" defined to
exclude revenue shortfalls, economic conditions, or the
effects of the Amendment.
• Requires all future state and local government debt
which extends beyond the fiscal year to be approved by a
two-thirds majority vote of electors. The election date and
notice requirements are the same as for tax increase
elections.
• Authorizes effective July 1, 1990, any local govern
ment to "cut or" end any state programs (except for
public education-kindergarten through grade 12) which
the General Assembly mandates without "full" state
funding.
• Requires voter approval in a general election for any
new state or local government licenses, permits, or fees or
any increased licenses, permits or fees which exceed the
net changes since January 1, 1989, in the U. S. Bureau of
Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index (C.P.I.) for all
Denver urban consumers.
• Generally prohibits future enactments of exemptions,
deductions, credits, deferrals, or "other special tax
benefits" unless approved at a general election.
• Limits effective July 1, 1990, increases in state fiscal
year spending, including reserves but excluding federal
funds and debt, to no more than the percentage change in
state population in the prior calendar year plus the prior
calendar year's C.P.I. percentage change except for net
changes in voter-approved revenue after June 30, 1990.
When state population and C.P.I. changes are negative,
reduced spending is required. Excess state revenues must
be refunded in the next year by an income tax credit
proportionate to each income tax overpayment.
• Repeals existing and prohibits future enactment of
recording or transfer taxes on real property.
• Repeals any new taxes or tax rate increases which first
became effective in 1988 without voter consent.
• Reduces effective with 1989 taxes the state income tax
to 90% of the 1987 individual rate unless a higher rate is
approved at an election. All taxable income would be
taxed at one rate.
• Establishes effective with 1989 taxes a personal property
tax credit and filing waiver of $250 per tax schedule
location, annually adjusted for C.P.I. changes.
• Limits the maximum annual tax on residential real
property, except for voter approved debt, to 19'0 of the last
assessed market value.
• Requires real property to be reassessed every two
years and apparently requires assessment to be based on
January 1 market value two years before.
• Limits annual property tax increases of all local
governments to yield no more than the prior year's
revenue, requiring downward adjustments for any C.P.I.
decreases and allowing upward adjustments of up to 5%
annually when the C.P.I. increases, plus new construction
revenue and voter-approved changes. School districts
would also be allowed to adjust for annual percentage
changes in student enrollment. Allows unapplied C.P.I.
and other increases to be carried forward and used in a
subsequent year.
• Clarifies that the Amendment is not intended to repeal
existing tax programs which yield lower taxes.
Analysis of the Effects of the Amendment
General Issues
The Amendment applies to the state and to all local
governments, including home rule municipalities. It appar-
ently would override all conflicting state constitutional
provisions which confer governmental taxing or spending
authority, such as the vazious powers conferred upon the
General Assembly and those powers conferred by Article
XX to the residents of home rule municipalities. Following
is an analysis of various general and specific issues
presented by the Amendment.
Representative Government Versus Governance by
Elections. In Colorado, decisions on taxes, expenditures,
and services normally aze made by elected public officials
who aze subject to periodic re-election and who have
contact with taxpayers at public hearings on proposed
revenue and expenditure issues, and through informal
communications which occur regularly between elected
officials and their constituents. In addition, our represen-
tative system of government generally includes special
processes for recall, initiative, and referendum when these
extraordinary safeguazds aze deemed appropriate or nec-
essary. The Amendment generally replaces representative
government with government by referendum on tax issues.
A fundamental question posed by the Amendment is
whether this major change in our governmental system is
desirable.
Need for Constitutional Limitations. Proponents of the
Amendment contend that taxes aze excessive and that a
constitutional prohibition on state and local tax increases,
except with the specific approval of the electorate, is
needed to constrain taxes and government. In evaluating
the appropriateness ofthe proposed constitutional amend-
ment,Colorado taxpayers can make their own evaluations
as to the reasonableness of tax levels and the adequacy of
government services. In this regard the following statistics
are informative:
• Colorado ranks 43 rd in per capita state government tax
receipts for fiscal year 1986. Colorado is 24 percent
below the national average for state taxes per capita
When combined with local government taxes, Colorado
ranks.19th, 4 percent below the national average. (Source:
Colorado Public Expenditures Council Report # 10, 6-
10-88).
• Colorado's ratio oftaxes to income has been equal to or
below the national average for state and local taxes for
every yeaz since 1970. (Source: Colorado Public Expendi-
tures Council Report # 10, 6-10-88).
• When the state faced a fiscal emergency in 1983, the
General Assembly temporarily increased the state sales
tax by 1/2 percent. Legislators adhered to the temporary
nature of the tax increase and allowed it to expire when it
was no longer needed.
• Responding to concerns over local property taxes, the
General Assembly enacted H.B. 1003 in 1986 and S.B.
184 in 1988 to further control increases in property tax
revenues.
• Property tax revenue for all local governments will
increase by only 5.6% in 1988. (Source: Colorado Public
Expenditures Council Report #8, 4-29-88).
• The General Assembly has also imposed other tax
limits on local governments (such as the 7% limit on
specified state and local sales taxes). In addition, a
number of home rule municipalities and counties have
imposed local tax or spending limitations on themselves.
Economic Development and Vitality. State and local
tax levels sometimes affect business relocation decisions.
Excessive taxes may discourage economic growth, new
businesses, and retention of existing businesses. On the
other hand, quality K-12 and higher education, a skilled
labor force, good transportation systems, and adequate
government services are often cited as important require-
ments for economic development. The Amendment could
prevent or impair the ability of Colorado's state and local
governments to fund programs which enhance economic
development. Adequate revenues to finance and improve
such services and facilities would likely be unavailable
without authorizing elections. The Amendment could also
prevent incentives from being offered to companies inter-
ested in locating in the state or in a local community since
these incentives could depend on a tax change requiring
voter approval. A vote on a tax increase to improve a
service or for economic development, no matter how
strongly it was supported by the citizens, could be held
only at the regular election of the entity or in November
when no regulaz election is to be held within 12 months. At
a time when state and local officials and business leaders
aze working to improve the state and local economies,
approval of this Amendment could be counterproductive
and send a negative signal to companies interested in
locating within Colorado.
State Versus Local Control. The Amendment provides a
blanket, statewide limitation applicable to every unit of
local government-whether or not the citizens of the local
government prefer their current representative system
over government by election. The Amendment's statewide
application thus removes local choice and interferes with
tax decisions which local citizens may wish to leave to
their elected representatives.
Specific Issues
Tax Changes Which Require Prior Voter Approval.
The Amendment covers "any new tax, tax rate increase,
or other change ...that causes a net gain in tax revenue."
This broad limitation raises various questions. For example,
is a vote required where total tax revenues are not
increased but a rate increase is necessary to offset a
decline in the tax base? Is a vote required where changes
increase the taxes of some individuals and reduce the
taxes for others? When is a fee really a fee and not a tax?
Tax Reform. Determination of which tax changes will be
considered"tax increases" subject to prior voter approval
will control the ability of future state and local legislative
bodies to reform or restructure taxes: Tax changes which
in the aggregate are revenue neutral may nevertheless be
"tax increases" requiring voter approval.
Tax Relie£ The Amendment would provide relief from
increased taxes to the extent that prior voter approval
deters tax increase proposals from being acted upon, or to
the extent that taxpayers reject tax increase proposals.
However, it may also discourage state and local govern-
ments from reducing taxing levels because of the difficulty
ofrestoringtaxes iffutureconditions dictate. Also, needed
capital and maintenance expenditures may be deferred
because of tax election requirements, resulting in increased
taxes and costs when needs are ultimately addressed.
Financing of Highways and Streets. Considerable interest
exists throughout Colorado in addressing deteriorating
state highway, municipal street, and county road systems.
The Amendment would require statewide elections to
generate new state revenues and local elections where
increased local taxes were required. Moreover, with the
six cent motor fuel tax increase enacted in 1986 scheduled
to expire in 1989, its continuation beyond 1989-previ-
ously regarded as likely and desirable-maybe in jeopazdy
because its continuation may be a"new or increased tax"
requiring statewide voter approval. Rejection of the tax
extension would reduce revenues for state and local
highways, roads, and streets by approximately $100
million annually.
Repeal of Real Estate Transfer Taxes. The Amendment
prohibits any recording or real property taxes regardless
of whether the taxes were approved by voters. At least 10
municipalities, primarily mountain resort communities,
have adopted real estate transfer taxes to provide services
for their residents and visitors. Locally these taxes have
been viewed as a desirable way to help pay for municipal
services. The Amendment would repeal each of these
taxes, forcing these communities to raise other taxes and
fees or reduce services. The Amendment can also be
interpreted as repealing state fees for recording of deeds
and other real estate documents. If that interpretation
proves to be correct, these costs will be transferred from
users to general taxpayers.
Repeal of Taxes Which Became Effective in 1988. The
Amendment provides that "any new tax or tax rate
increase first effective in 1988 without voter consent is
repealed" This would appear to invalidate any sales,
property, or other tax hikes which became effective in
1988 unless an election was held. Repeal of such taxes
could disrupt budgets and funding of current programs and
services. This might invalidate tax hikes enacted by public
officials for the Denver Convention Center and other
public projects unless federal constitutional protections
against impairment of contract obligations control.
Property Tax Assessments. Provisions concerning assess-
ment ofproperty raise several questions. The Amendment
provides that"except voter-approved debt, the maximum
annual tax on residential real property shall be 1% of the
last assessed market value". Note that this Iimit cannot be
exceeded even with the approval of local voters. In
addition, the Amendment provides that"Except changes
in physical condition, real property shall be reassessed
every two years based on its market value on January 1
two yeazs before." Unanswered are:
• How is the 1 % limit to be allocated among the county,
municipal, school district and special district levies in the
various areas of the state? Will this create a political and
administrative nightmare?
• Will the 1% limit, coupled with the $250 personal
property tax credit, reduce property tax revenues in
various areas of the state below current levels? If so, where
will replacement revenues come from?
• Will residential property be assessed at lower levels or
taxed at lower rates than commercial, industrial, agri-
cultural, and other nonresident properties?
• Which requirements, if any, in the 1982 property tax
reform amendment will be superseded or voided?
• Will agricultural property now be assessed at actual
value rather than on earning or productive capacity? If so,
agricultural land may be taxed at several times current
levels.
Property Tax Revenues. Rather than require voter
approval for"all" property tax increases, the Amendment
makes allowances for authorized increases which do not
require voter approval. Generally the Amendment limits
annual increases to increases of not more than 5% in the
C.P.I., plus "new construction." The Amendment does
not define "new construction," so revenue from municipal
annexations and special district inclusions may or may
not continue to be exempted. School districts can also
adjust property tax revenues for annual percentage changes
in student enrollment. The Amendment contains a useful
feature allowing unapplied C.P.I. and other increases to
be carried forward for future years. Apparently, the
Amendment would repeal all existing property tax limits
to the extent that they conflict with the limitations of the
Amendment.
Personal Property Tax Credits. The Amendment estab-
lishes "A personal property tax credit and filing waiver of
$250 per tax schedule location, annually adjusted for
C.P.I. changes. . . "This provision raises various
questions and issues.
• Since only businesses pay personal property taxes
(except for specific ownership taxes), is the credit and
filing waiver applicable only to businesses? If so, the
credit will shift taxes to those taxpayers who do not pay
personal property taxes.
• Is the credit a credit against the state income tax or
against local property taxes?
• Can a taxpayer claim multiple tax credits because the
credit is $250 "per tax schedule location?"
• If the credit exceeds the tax, is the taxpayer entitled to a
refund of the difference?
• How will the state or local governments finance the
credit?
State Income Taxes. The state income tax rate is capped
at 90% of the 1987 individual rate unless increased by a
vote at a statewide election. The Amendment also requires
all taxable income to be taxed at one rate. It is unclear
whether these restrictions apply to the corporate income
tax as well as to the individual income tax or just to the
individual income tax. Generally, changes in exemptions,
deductions, credits, etc. would appear to require voter
approval under other provisions of the Amendment.
Licenses, Permits, and Fees. The Amendment prohibits
any new or increased licenses, permits, or fees when such
increases exceed increases in the C.P.I., unless approved
3
at a general election. This provision raises a number of
issues and problems:
• What is considered a license, permit, or fee? (The
Amendment does not define taxes, licenses, permits, or
fees, or any other revenues levied or received by govern-
ments).
• Any new or increased licenses, permits, or fees (no
matter how small or needed) can be voted on only at a
general election held every two years. The November
election option does not apply to license, permit or fee
increases.
• Restrictions on new and increased user fees may in the
longer term shift state and local financing from user fees to
taxes.
• New recreation or other programs which require
imposition of a new fee, no matter how small, cannot be
imposed without approval at a general election.
Special Tax Preferences. One ofthe attractive features of
the Amendment from a local government perspective is
the prohibition on "future enactments of exemptions,
deductions, credits, deferrals, or other special tax benefits"
without approval in a general election. Preferential tax
legislation which erodes state and local tax bases and
shifts tax liability to other taxpayers has been a problem,
particularly at the state level, and this practice would be
controlled However, other provisions of the Amendment
restricting tax increases would tend to make existing tax
exemptions and preferences permanent. Tax reform
would become even more d~/,ficulG
Effect of State Spending Limit on Local Government
Programs. Interestingly, the Amendment imposes an
expenditure limit on state government but not on local
governments, whereas revenue limits apply to both state
and local governments. The state spending limit, coupled
with the 10% reduction instate income tax levels required
by the Amendment, will make it more difficult for the state
to finance or partially finance various programs now
administered by local governments (i.e., K through 12
public education, public safety, street and road construc-
tion and maintenance, welfare, and other social services
programs). This will put additional pressure on local
governments to reduce these and other programs or,
alternatively, to increase local property and other taxes.
Bond Issues. The Amendment raises a series of legal,
financial, and interpretive issues affecting the use of
bonds. These are too extensive to list or describe thoroughly.
Financing public projects through debt or bond financing
would become much more diflcult. Current laws requiring
a majority of votes to pass an issue would be changed to
require a two-thirds majority-essentially allowing a
minority of voters to control these important decisions.
Debt is not defined by the Amendment and a series of
questions concerning general obligation issues, revenue
issues, special assessments, and tax increment financing
arise concerning use of debt to finance public projects and
enhance economic development. Currently local bond
elections are held at vazious times throughout the year:
Under the Amendment, any bond elections would have to
be held on the regular election day or on the first Tuesday
in November. Quick action by a governmental unit to take
advantage of temporary reductions in interest rates might
be impossible. These difficulties could substantially in-
crease borrowing costs to governmental units and their
taxpayers. Municipal bonds issued for water projects,
now exempt from voter approval requirements, would be
subject to prior voter approval ifthe bond issue constituted
"debt" under the meaning of this Amendment. Finally,
other restrictions imposed by the Amendment on revenue-
raising powers of state and local governments could
adversely affect bond ratings, thus resulting in higher
interest costs for taxpayers.
Approval at General Elections. The Amendment requires
elections on new taxes or tax increases to be held "on a
State or district general election ballot scheduled within
12 months or, if none is scheduled, on the first Tuesday in
November." While "general election" is not defined, it
presumably requires the election to be held at the regular
election of the governmental unit or, if none is scheduled
within 12 months, on the first Tuesday in November. This
feature could increase voter participation and consolidate
elections. Its application, however, presents a number of
potential problems. Voters could be asked to vote on
complex issues involving several units of government at a
single election-elections for the municipality, county,
school district, and one or more special districts. Tradi-
tionally nonpartisan local elections might be combined
with partisan November state elections. Precinct or voting
locations could vary for different governmental units
holding elections on the same day, and this would confuse
voters. Multiple elections on the same day may raise other
administrative issues. A further question involves the term
"elector" or "voter", both left undefined in the Amend-
ment. Does"elector" or"voter" mean"registered elector,"
"qualified elector," "resident," or "taxpayer"?
Election Politics. Prior approval of each tax increase by
voters allows citizens direct control. How citizens exercise
that right, particularly on complex proposals, however,
may be more influenced by special interest involvement
and funds available for election campaigns than by the
merits of the proposal. Tax decisions made through the
deliberative process of representative government are
more likely to be determined on the merits of the issue than
on the fund-raising and get out the-vote capabilities of
particular individuals and groups.
Notices of Elections. The Amendment requires detailed
notices of the tax proposal to be mailed to each elector,
presumably at taxpayer expense. In addition to requiring
the governmental entity to provide the stated information, a
summary of up to 100 words must be included for any filed
criticism of the tax proposal. The Amendment provides
that "major defects in notice" shall invalidate the tax.
Emergencies. The Amendment contains a helpful exception
allowing increased taxes without prior voter approval for
emergencies. The Amendment, however, excludes "eco-
nomic circumstances"-which is not defined-from being
considered as emergencies. Moreover, use of emergency
funding is risky because such funding must be approved by
voters at the next election, and if rejected, proceeds from
the emergency tax increase must be refunded
Protection from State Mandates. From a local govern-
ment perspective the Amendment contains a positive
feature that, except for public education programs, local
governments may "cut or end spending programs the
State Legislature delegates to them for administration
under State guidelines but without full state funding..."
This feature partially addresses one of the greatest local
government frustrations-unfunded mandates from higher
levels of government which result in higher local expendi-
tures. The provision attempts to prevent state government,
in response to limits on state taxes and expenditures under
the Amendment, from shifting state responsibilities to
local governments. This provision could prove helpful
where there are clear, direct, and quantifiable state
program mandates. However, the prohibition may not
apply or may be unenforceable in other situations. First, it
has no effect on mandates imposed by the federal gover-
ment-mandates which often are more costly than state
mandates. Second, the lack of a clear and broad definition
of state mandates leaves the clause open to controversy
and potential abuse. For example, does the restriction
apply to old program mandates as well as new ones? Does
it apply to mandates which arise in the form of procedures
or standards as contrasted with mandated programs?
Does it apply to state regulations as contrasted with
statutory mandates? Three of the largest mandated costs
for municipal governments and their residents are environ-
mental standards (i.e., water quality requirements), per-
sonnel requirements (i. e., pension benefits), and pro-
cedural requirements (i. e., notice and legal publication
costs). Would the Amendment protect local governments
and their citizens from the costs of these mandates? Could
the state fulfill its requirement to fund a mandate by
shifting state revenues already distributed to local govern-
ments for other activities (such as highway revenue
distributions) to fund the mandated activity? What process
and who will determine whether a mandate exists and the
actual cost of the mandate?
Use of the Consumer Price Index. The Amendment ties
certain limitations, such as increases in licenses, permits,
and fees, to the Denver area consumer price index. That
index may not be relevant for other areas of the state. That
index is often inappropriate for even Denver area govern-
ments because C.P.I. changes do not necessarily measure
changes in government costs. Moreover, the allowable
inflation adjustments would apparently always be "after
the fact."
Formation and Consolidation of Governments. Interest
has been expressed recently in discouraging the formation
of additional governmental units, particularly special
districts, and in encouraging consolidation of existing
governmental units. Financial restrictions on existing
governments caused by the Amendment could prevent or
discourage existing governments from providing new or
additional services and result in formation of additional
local governments to provide such services. Also, the
Amendment does not contemplate the consolidation of
two or more local governments. Thus, it may complicate
or prevent consolidations and efficiencies which result
from such consolidations.
Impact on 1989 Budgets. The Amendment provides that
"Any new tax or tax rate increase first effective in 1988
without voter consent is repealed." The Amendment also
provides that any tax increase effective December 31,
1988, or thereafter requires voter approval. Licenses,
permits, and fees effective December 31, 1988, or there-
after likewise require prior voter approval if the increase
exceeds the increase in the C.P.I. Consequently, local
government budgeting this fall for 1989 will be much
affected by the Amendment. Any increases first effective
in 1988 (such as sales or use tax rite hikes) will be
repealed December 31, 1988, unless voter approval was
secured in enacting the tax. Tax reform changes first
effective in 1988 which have not received voter approval
(i. e., increasing the sales tax and reducing the property
tax) would apparently be repealed at least as to the
increased tax component even if the net effect were no
revenue gain. Property tax increases effective January 1,
1989, apparently will be invalid if they exceed the
allowable adjustments for population and C.P.I. changes.
(Arguably any property tax rate increases effective January
1, 1988, are invalidated; even if within the then applicable
statutory 5 1/2% limit and even if they were within the
allowable parameters of the Amendment's limit because
section 9(b) provides that "Any new tax or tax rate
increase first effective in 1988 without voter consent is
repealed") Local officials preparing their 1989 budget
also need to contemplate the requirement, effective July 1,
1989, for budgeting for an emergency reserve of at least
3%. Any new licenses, permits, or fees effective December
31, 1988, or thereafter apparently will require prior voter
approval. The allowances for license, permit, and fee
increases up to percentage changes in the C.P.I. without
voter approval may be inapplicable for 1989 because the
base for determining changes in the C.P.I. is January 1,
1989. These kinds of limitations make budget
ing for 1989 a difficult and uncertain process. Consequently,
local governments may wish to defer fmal budget decisions
until the Amendment is qualified or disqualified for the
ballot or until the results of the November 8 election are
known. Another option would be for local governments to
prepare alternate budgets-one in the event that current
law applies, and the other in the event that the Amend-
ment passes.
Costs of Compliance with the Amendment. The measure
is intended to .hold down government revenues and
expenditures by requiring prior voter approval of tax
increases, "excessive" increases in licenses, permits, and
fees, and issuance of debt. That result would likely occur
in numerous instances. However, government expendi-
tures for various purposes will be increased as a result of
the Amendment. For example, elections would generally
be required for any tax increase, no matter how small or
needed Special election costs are substantial(i.e., $60,000
in Colorado Springs). Notice requirements preceding
each election are extensive and would also be costly.
Costs of issuing bonds to finance public improvements
could rise substantially. Litigation would be required to
clarify many provisions of the Amendment, and where
taxpayers prevail in a lawsuit, the public entity will have to
pay all costs of the suit-at the expense of all its
taxpayers.
Ambiguities and Uncertainties. The Amendment is
comprehensive and complex in its treatment of state and
local taxes. Its comprehensiveness, complexity, and choice
of wording raise many questions concerning its ultimate
impact on citizens and their units of government. Extensive
litigation will be required for the courts to clarify and
ultimately determine what the Amendment means and
requires.
5
BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO: ~,
Article X, Section 21
i. GENERAL PROVISIONS t
This is the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights. It takes effect December 31, 1988 unless otherwise stated. "District" includes the State and all
lower levels of government. Supplemental State statutes require a 2/3 vote of the membership of each house. Parties may file in-
dividual or class action lawsuits, which shall have first judicial priority. If the suit succeeds, the district shall within 60 days, and with
10% annual interest, refund any illegal revenue and reimburse plaintiff for costs including attorney fees.
2. TAX ELECTIONS
Any new tax, tax rate increase, or other change in district policy, except changes allowed in section 10.c., that causes a net gain in tax
revenue requires voter consent in advance except in section 3 emergencies. The measure shall be on a State or district general elec-
tion ballot scheduled within 12 months or, if none scheduled, on the first Tuesday in November. 25 days notice, titled "NOTICE OF
ELECTION TO RAISE TAXES", shall be mailed to each elector residence, listing: The election date, hours, and polling place: the next
fiscal year's estimated revenue with and without the tax; the spending totals of the past 5 budgets; what groups would pay more taxes:
the tax expiration date or "None"; and an outline up to 100 words stating how the money would be spent. A summary up to 100 words
of any filed criticisms shall be included. If a challenge be filed within 10 days after the election, major defects in notice shall invalidate
the tax. Whenever an amount equal to 5% or more of the new revenue is diverted from the designated expenditures, the tax must be
reduced by that amount. Effective July 1, 1989, the initiative and referendum powers for cities shall apply to all local taxing districts.
3. EMERGENCIES
Emergency taxes are valid only if the district meets all of these terms:
a. It seeks funds only for the difference between reserves, plus State and Federal funds available, and its estimated
emergency costs until the next available tax election date.
b. The emergency is declared and defined by 2/3 of the membership of the elected district board or of each house of the State
Legislature.
c. Funds raised are used only for emergency expenses.
d. A tax election on the next available date must secure voter consent or the tax is voided retroactively.
e. Revenue shortfalls, economic conditions, or the effects of this amendment are not emergencies.
4. RESERVES
Each district shall reserve 3% or more of its budget for declared emergencies only. The reserve has first claim on revenues when
below 3%. Revenue shortfalls, economic conditions, or the effects of this amendment are not emergencies. This section takes effect
July 1, 1989.
5. DEBT ELECTIONS
All future government orgovernment-backed debt extending past the fiscal year requires a 213 voter majority. Section 2 requirements
shall apply, substituting "debt" for "tax" where appropriate.
6. PROGRAM SHIFTS
Excepting public education through grade 12, local districts may cut or end spending programs the State Legislature delegates to
them for administration under State guidelines but without full State funding, effective July 1, 1990.
7. REVENUE SHIFTS
Licenses, permits, and fees may be enacted or raised only in a general election unless raised no more than net changes since January
1, 1989 in the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index ("C.P.I.") for all Denver urban consumers. Except sec-
tion 8 credits, future enactments of exemptions, deductions, credits, deferrals, or other special tax benefits require approval in a
general election.
8. SPENDING LIMITED
Percentage increases in fiscal year State spending, including reserves but not debtor Federal funds, shall not exceed the percentage
change in state population in the prior calendar year, using Federal census estimates, plus that prior calendar year's C.P.I. percen-
tage change, except by net changes in voter-approved revenue after June 30, 1990. A negative percentage total requires reduced
spending. Excess revenues shall be refunded in the next year by an income tax credit proportionate to each income tax overpayment.
This takes effect July 1, 1990.
9. TAXES REPEALED
a. Recording or transfer taxes on real property are prohibited.
b. Any new tax or tax rate increase first effective in 1988 without voter consent is repealed.
10. TAXES REDUCED
Starting with 1989 taxes:
-a. The State income tax rate may exceed 90% of the 1987 individual rate only by tax election. All taxable income shall be taxed at one
rate.
b. A personal property tax credit and filing waiver of $250. per tax schedule location, annually adjusted for C.P.I. changes, is
established.
c. Except voter-approved debt, the maximum annual tax on residential real property shall be 1 % of the last assessed market value.
Except changes in physical condition, real property shall be reassessed every two years based on its market value on January 1
two years before. All mill levies shall be set annually to yield no more than the prior year's revenue, adjusted for any C.P.I.
decreases and up to 5% in annual increases. plus new construction revenue and voter-approved changes. School districts may
also adjust for annual percentage changes in student enrollment since the later of these: its last adjustment: or their last tax or
debt election. Unapplied C.P.I. and other increases carry forward.
d. No repeal of programs yielding lower tax liability is intended. 6
',l i ~
• ~ ..._Jl i ~~~
~~
r! T
Vuice of the l~.ocl'
Maurice L. Mickey, GJitor and Publislur
Antltuny FI. C:unpbell, Esc~cutive Editur
Chuck Green. L•'~liturial PageLdilur
Jue F[. Bullard, blana;Rn~ Cditur
Sue Y. Smith, :Luuciate 1:'ditor
willi:Ln II. I-Iornby, ~niurEditor
)/ 1~TOLll1Lal11 }Jlllpll'l:
'l'ax threat to rL~ral Colorado
~OLORADO voters may be
asked to decide the fate of
yet another "tax limitation"
amendment in November. But
ironically, the so-called "taxpay-
ers' bill of rights" could devastate
Colorado's rural economv by
sharply ulcreastn~ taxes on hard-
pressedfarmers and ranchers.
Three previous drives to put a
fiscal straitjacket on Colorado
have been rebuffed b}• voters -
in 1~iG, 1J7$ and 19~G. 'Girls latest
drive :nay be stopped Short of the
ballot -opponents charge that
petition orgaruzcrs turned in thotl-
sancts of invalid signatures.
~Vhilc the letial battle dras~s on,
it's time for (;olorauans to be~It
considcrin:; what could happen ii
I.he ;tnte-tcintettl l~ec:ante law.
Frankly, nubody seems sure -
because the amendment is dan-
gerously vague and silent on hey
issues. 13ut many business and ag-
ricultural leaders, including the
Colorado Association of Com-
merce and Industry, fear it could
damage the state's economy.
For openers, the Lax-revolt
drive would complicate efforts to
solve Colorado's urban transpor-
tation and air pollution problems.
But its bi,gest threat may be t.o
rural Colorado. The chief prob-
lem is a section that seems to rc-
~ IIIU•c t hat :l:,~r'IC~Iltlu'al land be as-
sessecl ;il ltt;trlccl v:llul; f~-r I:u
purpusc~s.
The ;l[11(!nlllill'Ilt rcdull'cs rc~I-
tlential In'ohcrl~• t.o Ise assesst~~l :~I.
market ~:~luc. I';uls, it scelns .~u-
perfictall~~ f;lir to Impose lire
same requtrcmenl on farm ;lnd
ranch {~rot7ccl~•. 13ut In tact, tha
ostenstblc •'m;u•~:~~1 v:Ilue" for
farm ::::d ranch ~cuul ~~ uften a
phantom ii;tir'e t ~.a is inflated by
::perl:?stion or transfer of a~•ICUt-
tural land to urban uses. Such in-
flated prices often bear little re-
lationship to the income farmers
and ranchers can expect to earn
from that land.
For example, a few acres of
meadowland may be sold [or a
golf course at prices a dairy
farmer could never pay. Another
section may be bought by specu-
lators who ~ltope to rezone it and
develop it as a subdivision. If
such sales are llten used to estab-
lish stn arbitrary "value" on all
farmland, the resultin; taxes
could drive legitimate farmers in-
to baltkruplcy.
1'he present state law protects
.rural Colorado by using a formula
known as the "capitalization
rate" -which establishes a tax
value for agricultural land that
reflects its actual ability to gener-
ate farm and ranch income. That
system has protected rural Colo-
rado. But it also has shielded ur-
ban residents from the helter-
skelter development that could
result if farmers were forced to
sell out en masse to land specula-
tors.
~Ve believe that system works
well. But if it is time to change
the way Colorado taxes agricul-
tural property, that change
should coma through the lc;isl;~-
1 urc -where its effect un I tic
(;ulorado economy and li(estylc
could be carefully weif;hed.
'I'bis slate's farmers have al-
ready been battered by low
prices and searing heal that clam-
;ll;ed much of ibis year's crop. IL
would be unconscionable to drive
vet another nail into the coffin of
Colorado agriculture by shifting
an unf;iir burden onto rural Colo-
rado in the name of a mis;tiided
"tax revolt."
Page 48 Monday, Ocf. 17, 1988
_w ~ p
Ralph looney /~ Roel~y Mountain l~ 11 ~ William W. Fletcher
Editor President, General t`.tanage~
"Qlve light and the people will 11nd their own wey"
Jey Ambrose, Executive Editor EditOl'lalS Jean Otlo, Ed~tonal Page Editor
Amendment 6 a
OV. Roy Romer has used the word "terrorist"
G when discussing Constitutional Amendment 6. He
exaggerates, of course, but not by much. Amendment 8
is one of the most radical ballot proposals Coloradans
will ever be called upon to address.
It begins with an assault on representative democra-
cy. If the amendment passes, every proposed tax in-
crease at every level of government would go to a vote
of the people. Every one. Otherwise taxes could in-
crease only by the rate of inflation adjusted for any
population growth or decline.
But perhaps you're wondering, What's wrong with
that? Why shouldn't tax hikes reflect the popular will?
Well, theoretically they already do. I[ we don't like the
taxes imposed on us, we can vote politicians out of
office. Amendment 6 Is a giant step away from repre-
sentative government toward direct democracy, where
the general public makes complicated decisions on
[unding issues they know little or nothing about.
Ironically, however, this attack on representative
government is the least of Amendment 6's sins. It also
requires steep rollbacks in present levels of taxation
- catastrophic rollbacks, to be blunt.
If Coloradans pass Amendment 6, we'll be telling the
dangerous bully voters should whip
nation we're about to dlspettse with a wide array of
governmental services, that we'll probably never again
commence a major public project such as a new
airport or convention center, that we so distrust our
public officials that we refuse to grant them tradition-
al responsibilities enjoyed by elected leaders virtually
everywhere else.
- The amendment requires an estimated =160 mil-
lion rollback in the state income tax. That means
reductions in current funding for education, roads and
the rest.
- It limits the maximum annual tax on residential
property (except for debt) to 1% of market value.
Since a number of counties already tax property above
that figure, schools would suffer another staggering
blow.
- It repeals any tax passed in 1968 that was not
approved by voters, such as Denver's recent head•tax
dike. If the amendment passes, layoffs in the Denver
police and fire departments are virtually certain.
- It requires atwo-thirds vote of the people - we
repeat, atwo-thirds vote - before a governmental
unit can incur debt. Could Denver even muster such a
huge majority Jn favor of tloating bonds for a new
airport? And if not, on what conceivable project would
voters approve a bond issue?
- Amendment 6 would render the new school fi-
nance bill useless. As a result, Colorado school [unding
would once again become vulnerable to lawsuits for
inequities between rich and poor districts. It's even
conceivable that all public schools. as opposed merely
to Denver's, could end up in the hands of the federal
courts.
-Alt real estate transfer and recording taxes would
be repealed.
- The 6Q motor vehicle tax scheduled to expire in
1989 could not be renewed without a statewide vote.
- Agricultural property would be taxed at market
value, not according to its productive and profit poten-
tial. This could devastate rural economics.
In short, Amendment 6 is not merely a "tax limita•
lion" measure but a promise of radical downsizing o[
government. Whatever the motives of its supporters,
the amendment is a dangerous blunt weapon poised to
cripple our schools, universities, road maintenance,
public safety -virtually any public function you can
game. It deserves ^,verwhelming repudiation.
eigs z .. u~ TIE ffAE6E YliLLEY @WTLi1PR1fE
`g _ ._ _. .
Q~°~ - ~~1~0.~'1~1
.4. -~.y~~~. .. •
-Blil
While the courts continue fo wrestle with arguments on
the validity of signatures that would send two of eight
constitutional questions to Colorado voters next month, it
is important for voters to learn more about each question.
Certainly the most important of the eight questions is
an initiated proposal innocently identified on the ballot as
Amendment No. 6. It is one of the two ballot proposals
still in debate in the courts.
Amendment No. 6 is commonly referred to as the
"Taxpayers Bill of Rights."
Voters beware. _ „_ ~ ,.
Amendment No. 6 is similar to Amendment No. 4 .
rightfully rejected by Colorado voters just two years aga.
The latest proposal carries even more strings and more
restrictions than its predecessor.
-The new version contains as many as 20 major provi-
sions. Some of its requirements are so vague even pro-
ponents agree court interpretations will be necessary if
the amendment is passed.
The measure would limit spending increases by state
and local government's to percentage population and
consumer price Index changes; unless the changes weee
approved by the voters.
Local governments would be prohibited from imposing
a new tax or raising an existing tax unless voters first ap-
proved it.
Consider the delays until the next election, or the costs
of repeated special elections.
Amendment No. 6 would reduce state revenues by
about $200 million. Property taxes would be limited to 1
_.
of rights'or goons?
percent of the last assessed market value on residential
real estate.
Income taxes would be reduced to 90 percent of the
1987 individual rates and instead be assessed atone rate.
'Miscellaneous other taxes would be prohibited.
Amendment No. 6 would effectively prevent state and
local governments from functioning. Our existing form of
representative government entrusts elected officials to
decide revenue policies. If we disagree with their deci-
sions, we vote to replace them. ~ - ~ . ~ • ~ ~~ -
Colorado Is struggling to overcome a fingering
economic slowdown. The signal Amendment No. 6, if
approved, would send outside the state would kill hopes
for economic recovery. _.
. A school board in the Front Range metro area has
become so alarmed about the impact Amendment No. 6
would have on its district that every board member has
promised to resign if the proposal is approved. _ --
One of the Western Slope's most trusted and effective
state representatives, aman who has given the last 12
years to public service, vows, "If Amendment No. 6
~ssses, I'm thro~,gh!" .
The passage of Amendment No. 6 on Nov. 8 would be
devastating to Colorado.
Amendment No. 6 is not a taxpayers' bill of rights. It is
a fox in sheep's clothing. It is a bill of goods. It must be
defeated.
It needs to be rejected. by such a margin that voters _
don't have to hear it again.
. rgr
~~,
Amendment Six
not a solution
Amendment Six styles itself a Taxpayers Bill of
.Rights, but its provisions take power out of the hands
of voters.
The amendment, which looks like it will be on the
November ballot, is a bad one and should be voted
down. In the name of cutting back taxes, the amend-
ment slashes at the ability of elected officials to make
decisions on revenue and taxes and places those
powers in a government by referendum.
One amendment provision calls for voter approval of
any new tax, tax rate increase or other change in tax
policy that causes a net gain in tax revenue. The appli-
cation of the provision would greatly hamper the man-
ner in which a local government is able to respond to
needs and emergencies in a timely manner, and in a
manner most responsible to the needs of the local tax-
payingpopulace.
Another provision requires all future, state and lo-
cal government debt which extends beyond the fiscal
year to beapproved by atwo-thirds majority vote, with
the same election requirements as for a tax increase
election. Bond elections are now held at various times
throughout the year, and Breckenridge has, on several
occasions, taken advantage of low interest rates to do
an advance refunding -- issued new bonds at a lower
interest rate to pay ofI' an old debt. Amendment Six
would hinder local government attempts to take ad-
vantage of low interest rates to save money because
regularly scheduled election times might not coincide
with good market conditions.
Of great concern to town officials is the, provision
calling for the repeal of the real estate transfer tax, an
average $525,000 a year revenue for Breckenridge.
Also of concern to ski town officials is the provision for
the increase of taxes on an emergency basis -- exclud-
ing revenue shortfalls. In a tourist economy, a bad
snow year and subsequent revenue shortfall is about
the surest, shortest way to an emergency.
Voters choose government through the election
process, and make concerns and needs known through
those elected officials. Amendment Six would mandate
a rigid system that doesn't allow for elected officials --
and through them, the voters -- to meet widely diver-
gent budget situations in the most suitable manner to
the specific problem.
It's a bad amendment with a nice name. It will not
solve problems. It will only lock them in.
Paps 2E The Chieftain, Puabto, Colo., Sunday, October 18, 1988
___ C~~t~~t~t~
Star-Journal
FAANK S. HOAG, General Manager, Publisher, President -191M-1963
FRANK S. HOAG, JR. ROBERT H. RAWLINGS
Chairman of the Board Publisher and Editor
The package is pretty
but the contents stink
REMEMBER THE stories about people who wrapped
their garbage in Christmas paper and left it in their
unlocked cars? A lot of people bit on this joke, not realizing
what the wrapping hid.
A similar "present" is offered on the Nov: 8 ballot, buE
this is no joke. It is cloaked in the attractive phrase "the
,Taxpayer's Bill of :Rights," although many have heard.
about it by the acronym TABOR.
At first glance, there seems to be something for every-
body to love in this proposed constitutional amendment. It
would cut income and property taxes. It would repeal re-
cording or transfer taxes on real property. It would repeal
any new tax or tax increase enacted during-1988 by any lev-
el of government in the state without voter approval.
But the muscles in this amendment are the provisions re-
quiring all tax increases to be approved by the voters and
' requiring atwo-thirds majority for passage of bond issues.
To mandate voter approval of all tax increases-flies in the
face of our nation's and state's long and successful rep-
- tesenfative form of government...
Proponents of TABOR argue that government has not
been responsive to the will of the people. We contend that,
while there have been exceptions; vur elected officials gen-
erally reflect the popular will. When they don't, they can be" -
w4"fed out of office.
To require atwo-thirds majority-for approval of bonds is
to give_to a small minority -not of the populace but only
of those who participate in such an election -the power to
dictate to all the rest of us.
'TABOR is a meat-ax approach aimed at hobbling all lev-
els of government in the state, whether or not the citizens of
a local government prefer their current representative sys-
tem over government. by plebiscite.
Another troubling provision for rural Colorado is one
that eventually could be construed to tax agricultural land
at its actual value rather than on earning or productive ca-
pacity. The language is undear, but if the courts were to so
rule, farm and ranch land would be taxed at several times
current levels. That could put many Carmers and ranchers
out of business and further depress regional and the state
..economies. _ .. .. ... -.
There are many other disturbing aspects to Amendment ,
6, and we will detail those in upcoming days.
We are urging a strong "no" vote on this proposal. $e•
ware of what's inside the pretty package.
mountain properties associates
Real Estate Sales • Management • Development
~a~ ~~ OCT 2 5 1988
October 24, 1988
Mr. Ron Phillivs
Town of Vail
75 S. Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
Dear Ron,
Just a short note to express my appreciation to employees of
the Town of Vail Planning and Building Departments.
I have been involved in a real tussle with my neighbor
regarding a planned addition to my home. The outcome was not
favorable to me, and about the only positive things in the
whole transaction Caere employees at the Town of Vail.
Specifically, Rick Pylman and Joe Farris, and the entire.
staff at the planning department were very cooperative and
helpful. I enjoyed working with them and as soon as my
neighbor and I can work out an agreement, I look forward to
worlting with them again.
Please let Rick and Joe know my feelings and keep up the good
work!
Sincerel~y~,
~~~%J`5 B+~-
enneth D. Wilson
108 s. frontage rd. w. • suite 214 . vail, Colorado 81657.303/476-7450
~,
Ct:l d l r
TOWN OF VAIL MEMORANDUM
TO: Council Members
FROM: Steve Thompson
DATE: October 25, 1988
RE: Banks we may Purchase CD's from
Name of Bank
Coast Savings & Loan,
California
Insured By
FSLIC
This bank meets the qualification criteria established by the
Investment Committee.
Tax vote
onds
rb
fo
>.
~~ `Black Thursday' `
~~, fox Colo. issues..-
- By Henry Dubroff
Denver Post Business Writer
The market fpr Colorado tax-ex-
empt bonds was devastated Thurs-
day by fears that Amendment ~,
-the proposed tax-limitation consti-
tutional amendment, will be ap-
proved by voters on Nov 8.
Standard & Poor's, the New
} York credit rating agency, put $2
billion of Colorado bonds on its
"credit watch" list for a possible
downgrading. The announcement
signaled to Wall Street that Color-
. do's bonds could become far more
risky after the election.
S&P cited the "negative implica-
t~ons" of the tax liassat~en of the
ment, saying p g
amendment would force a $120 mil-
lion cut in state taxes and have an
undetermined impact on city and
county governments.
Double-edgect'swora
" >" A downgrading by S&P, one of
the major rating agencies on Wall
Street, drives the interest rate paid
'~ o- the bonds up, while simulta- ,
neously driving prices down. A
hike in interest rates will make it
'more. expensive for 'government
:* agencies tQ .issue bonds"that pay
~: for new sewer systems, bridges,
and other vital,public projects.
,. Amendment 6, if approved by
~gters, would require a public vote
on any new taxes and fees and
•would freeze residential property ~'
~~ taxes at 1 percent of assessed mar-
ketvalue.
~: The amendment also would pre-
went state and local agencies from
issuing bonds in anticipation of fu-
ture tax increases and it could af-
tectfuture tax increases needed to
repay bonds that ah•eady are out-
. standing.
'-• On Wall Street Thursday, Colo-
rado bond prices dropped $10 to $20
per $1,000 in value and m some
cases there were no bidders fora
bonds offered for sere. 000 in the
price moves of $5 p $ ,
value of a bond in a single day are
considered large.
Lawsuits cited
.~ ~ Standard & Poor's also cited a
host of potential lawsuits over the
'amendment. Numerous interpre-
five problems need to be resolved
in the courts, S&P said. Some crit-.
iCS say the amendment may even-'
tually be declared unconstitutional
because it ddesn't exempt bonds is-
sued before the amendment is vot-
.~d on.
-; Douglas Bruce, the Colorado
Springs investor who organized the
:Amendment 6 campaign, said the
S&P action was simply posturing
Eby the rating agency. "They al
ways pull this stunt for any tax hm
it measure, anywhere," he said.
T~ limitation measure
slashes state bond rating
BONDS from Page 1-A
Also on Thursday, Bond Inves-
tors Guaranty Corp., a New York
bond insurance agency, revoked its
commitment to insure an Aurora
Public Schools underwriting, citing
Amendment 6 concerns.
The underwriting was being pre-
pared by the investment firm of
Hanifen, Imhoff Inc. and the insur-
er's decision effectively ,shelved
the issue until after-the Nov. 8 elec-
tion.
The moves by S&P and Bond In-
vestors Guaranty Corp. came one
day after Goldman, Sachs & Co:
withdrew from a syndicate of in-
vestment firms bidding on a $50
million Metro Denver Sewer Dis-
trict offering. Goldman Sachs also
cited concerns about Amendment
6.
"You could call this a Black
Thursday. This is the last -thing
Colorado needs," said Jim Cough-
lin, president of the investment
firm Coughlin & Co. He said Colo-
rado's bonds are likely to remain
under a cloud until the Nov. 8 elec-
tion.
"Everybody believes in cutting
taxes. But this has gone too far,"
said Jack Bruggeman, senior vice
president at Hanifen, Imhoff: "
Coughlin said the reaction of rat-
ing agencies and New York firms
to this year's initiative was far
stronger than its reaction to a 1986
tax-limitation proposal. That pro-
posal was defeated.
The S&P credit watch affects
Colorado certificates of participa-
tion, Colorado Housing and Fi-
nance Authority general obligation
bonds and 62 local general obliga-
tionbonds.
S&P said the initiative probably
would not hurt revenue bond issues
secured by non-tax revenues, such
as bonds issued for Denver airport
projects that are secured by land-
ing fees charged to the airlines.
b, ~ \
Maurice L. Hickey, Publisher
Chuck Green, Editor
DENVER Anthony H. Campbell, Executive Editor
Jce H. Bullard, Managing Editor
~'r~~`1T Sue F. Smith, Associate Editor.
~tl~I\! 1 William H. Hornby, Senior Editor
~* Voice of the Rocky Mountain Empire
Tax shlf t clobbers , -Colorado
E'VE WARNED before Naturally, officials who need to
Wthat passage of the radical combat an emergency such as a
tax-shift scheme called Amend- flood can't wait until, say', ahalf-
ment 6 would clobber Colorado's percent increase in the sales tax
economic recovery. In a sense, has produced the necessary reve-
we were wrong. Amendment 6 is nue over the next two years: They
clobbering Colorado even before , borrow the money to repair the
voters decide its fate. - , damage -and .pledge the pro-
Standard and Poor's, the New ~ needs of such a temporary tax to
York credit rating agency, Thurs- pay off the bonds.
day put $2 billion worth of Colora- At lea$t, that's what they did
do bonds on its "credit watch" list before Amendment 6. But Amend-
because of the possibility that ment 6 says that such a sales tax
Amendment 6 might pass. ,would be repealed retroactively
`
Standard and Poor's is not unless it achieved two-thirds vot-
alone in dropping Colorado bonds er approval. That means that if an
.like hot potatoes. Goldman Sachs emergency did strike, Coloradans
& Co. dropped out of bidding for .:would be reduced to asking the fi-
$50 million in Metropolitan Den- nancial underwriters to lend us
ver Sewer District bonds. Bond .money with no security beyond
Investors Guaranty Corp. similar- the vague hope that voters in
ly revoked its commitment to in- ;some future election would agree
• sure an Aurora Public Schools un- - by atwo-thirds majority - to
derwriting. In each case, the pay it back.
financial experts said they drop- Would you lend your money to
ped Colorado because of the Colorado on those. terms? We
threat of Amendment 6. wouldn't lend ours.
So, even without passing, These intentional. examples,
Amendment 6 has temporarily ;bad as they are, are only part of
crippled Colorado's credit. If the the damage Amendment 6 would
damage becomes permanent on do to Colorado's credit. Its sloppy
Nov. 8, Coloradans will have to language and fuzzy thinking might
'
pay millions of dollars in higher ,
do even more harm.
interest .rates when we borrow As just one example, Colora- Y~
-
money - if we can borrow at all.. able to save
dans have .been
The tax-shift scheme's chief millions of dollars when interest
backer, Douglas Bruce, claims rates drop by refinancing existing
the financial markets' panic. is un- ,high-interest debt. with new, low- ;,
`
warranted. But in fact, much of er-interest bonds. Would Amend-
the damage to Colorado's credit ment 6 require an election with a
rating is intentional. For instance, >two-thirds approval on ,even such
.Amendment 6 cynically scraps routine refinancings? If the courts
majority rule by requiring that 'ruled .that the election require-
two-thirds of the voters approve ment did apply, .then such modifi-
any bond issues. cations would be virtually impos-
Similarly, it's no accident that sible. Interest rates are volatile,
Amendment 6 would cripple the 'and the chance for such bargains
state's ability to borrow money to might have vanished by the time
deal with emergencies. The an election could be held months
amendment allows elected offi- or years later.
cials to impose emergency taxes In this and countless other
- .but requires voter approval of ways, .Amendment 6's meaning is
such taxes at the next election. If unclear. What is clear is that this
voters turn that tax down, the tax tax-shift turkey deserves a re-
is then repealed retroactively. ~ sounding defeat on Nou. 8:
r~
October 24, 1988
Mayor Kent Rose
Vail Town Council
On Tuesday Oct. 18, the council voted 4 to 2 to increase
taxes to rebuild and maintain our streets.
I asked why not carry this project out over 10 years
instead of $ years, and perhaps avoid a tax increase.
Answers like, "we would be making a bad business decision",
"maintenance on the existing streets would be higher" etc.
This question needs proof and not generalizations.
A copy of the proposed street rebuilding project shows
that 4 years and not 5 will require an average of
X1,500,00 per year, with costs dropping to X400,000 by
1993.
If we were to spend the money 06,000,000 ) over 8 years
instead of 4, our expenditures would drop to X750,000
per year and possibly avoid the need for a tax increase.
As a practical matter, let us look at a few streets for
proof. My own street, Ptarmigan Road, is probably close
to 20 years old. A few minor patches now and then could
suffice for another 5 or 10 years. How many other lightly
traveled streets could survive the same treatment needs
to be addressed.
Give us facts and proof. If I am willing to wait on
spending X66,000, how many others would be happy to
do the same?
Perhaps you would also give us some idea of how many
other tax increases you plan for the coming year..
At the same meeting only one person in the standing room
only crowd indicated a willingness to pay more taxes.
When the voters elected Mike Cacciopo in the recent
special election,did you get a message, or should we
increase our efforts in the next election?
S erely ~~
Ralph E. Davis Jr.
;, ~
r ~Qr ~ ..qtr,-~ - {•~ '7 :7T ~ -
~ +a+. i ~ ~ ~ ' >.
~ "'~•:
•:t ~ ~-. sp-..`-
i .d ..
t i a74 ~4. 'ty - ~ - ~ T
,,~- {.~~
. ,yip Y... - - l 1 ~ y ~~~
!r _ rte' 4'= t - .F
a `i w `~
~ Jr ~t , ..rp- a r ~ - ',
s. ~~ r ~,~ ~. A• .biro ~ -v.~) ., - - -r. ,~ ~~~~ •
t~: ... ~ -~ ~ _ ~ «I Vote l 1 ~ ~' " ~ :•~`~ •
...~. L _ :~ ~.t ~ Co orado ~5 ~
~ - -~ :...,-:.:: ~`~ . ~-.:. ~ ~doesn't et the
~~ ~~ ~ ~,..~F: ....:............. _.. - - ~ r: vote of all th ~ '~
~t= ~.~ , ... ~~~.,,,~;, . ~;~..,~-z-~~r ~~ ~~;~, . ; - ~ wcandidates Pa e 5 ~_ ..
.~ 7
( K ~ r •'~ft'j , - ti` ~' ' ~ ~ YJ~- _ F t~ +nw~.~'r. 4 •V~
s.:s u -~- {~~~°~~ x A ~ ~ r ~ ~1 ~ ~ ~ r •~- For. the Io~re Y..
{ Vr~:,/h~ >t. ~ 5 ~,
~~ ~~ ~~- ~" ~. ~, ~ ~" of cats ~~, ~4_ , ~-„~Y
-~~ ar <t 3~ ~4- < - ..: } :s r~''-'r '.' ^;y .,•...; Page 1~ ~ ~~' ~.;~
qyy7 ~ ~ ~fwr.Yr t. J ti~ ~' ^~ : _ v ~~ sa _ * 1••. .. ~•,.~ ~l.~i~. •11~ i ' `_ ~*•+,. +•t .
1 ~ ~' ~~ - r ~ 1 . ~
-{. .a ~. _ar 7~C ~•~• .,:-.t& .\'. t e, ,. ~;~ti tY•. ~•••v.:~r~ '~- i fv T -
i• a'*. »r. is i : v`', F ~ >. y •. •'': ~~.~~ .. ,,.• ,a .} ' .. *., .~
~A ~ ~ti~ 1~,• r .r:~ tit v~~` _ ~• -.-~ys
'~ _~ ' Y-,,,, ra't'': •' -~ ~. ~'• •:: , .• ,+ ,. a .• li.r
~1~. j ~'". "+tiX~_ 1r„SI ~ti:!~~;~•,`: •"~•~:4~.: :ir t .l. t.• _,~z ( y x
.. ~ '`r+J y~ k~~~' i ~~~ ~,'r`:••~ it •i: '.~•~ . z ~' a +~ a r~. s, i ~ ~
.A w~ \~.i;rrlpi `r .. ~ • _ . _ ~ s cif ~ a ~ ~ ~:a F ~~~• ,.
Eby +b ~,~• ~ ~ V < •~ ' i»v 'w : 6 ~ ''~~ f ~;
:. '' x ` S
.• ,
.. .:'
.. '^ j
-
"`~~ 4 " ~ ;'~ „ v . • - `.: r~~. ..,~„ n ~;.~~ ;fir r~ t~ -g
.•
e I •*. f - .~i t ~
ty 0 . ~~ al-5 ,~ •!,_' rat 1 ~~ r C`ti"s ~ ~ ` { .T , £: f}r~~ ~ •~.~ ~ • +~t ~ Y~r~ r~ i4,t~~ -. )~1~~1
~y~,,-~ , _ .~
}_ ~t~t ~ k S.ir ..: :` ... ~ ~~.• r 1 r. >~ a~t). ~ Y -~5 ~~~~ fir,
„.
• ...
-
r ~ r' ,."` car-, .' ~ v '~~ ~ ~~y°,~
.. _ Y"i
.....+Mw+...w~. ~, "g""'•~"•"~ ty unpairs reliability or requuea
` ~, ,, •~ ry e ~ ~~ ~ ~ r ,~ ~s materu3l lifestyle change v
,r;' 9 - - -;, is where the toilet co esn
' ~~ ~ .Of Toilets~~and wo Forks . itheresanareawhereenvironm
:4,,... e`v 'fir:
v,
.,
~v - :. ' :~ A~ ~ ~~^ :'~ - ~ t'b ~. 'ErivuornentalistS ~ ' talists should have a good az
~ t ~ ,,~ went, if-would seem to be in the use
~..
l- ~ > (ULF)
+> ~ c - ~ 1I1S1St SaV1Ilg -bw Eush /}7r ,~ toilets. After
+. i ,~ ~ 4 ~ ~ ' ~ • `~- ,. proba ly only the most ecxerttric'per
' I `Water COt11C1 feels a lower_comfort levetftvm hav
~~ 4•
r ._ '_y ~ ~ ~ ` Y „~. r~ 4-,. _ _ " ,~ :1.6 gallons rather than ~ve gallons
' `SavPi t1S frOI71 -Water flush waste down the toilet-
~ •'~'' ~ ~,~+. long as the job gets done And tests
'r ,~ x~ '• *~ S~' ~ ~ .:the .dam ~~ 'the American National,$tandazds
.~ ., ~- v • > ~~ _. - ,~ ~, stitute indicate ULF toilets yca` rt do the j
~~ - ~,-`~ -. ~" ~'i? ; ~,•,k„By Tom Locke~"_ ~=yYet-lack of concera~~out- toi
,~...y~ ~ ~ ± - .r 4' _ doesn't diminish their'importance. W:
~.,, ~.. , ,_, #r,,s~, ,,,~ ~ ~ .~~.~ ~ . ''Z : ; . ~ ^ 7=~. ,:the savings of ULF toilets (1.6 gallon
.~ ,
F ~ .,,x ~ I; :a• '~' ..,~~i~ ;: ~.-;_,~e3 _less);areeomparedwiththecostofT
~;~ = r~X.r•. r t _ *, r, ~ a `•~'"s ~.•. .~- . ~ ~' ~ 'Forks' filling five$allon and 3.5-ga]
~ ~ ~ r;
r't _
' :: r' ~~ ~,~,
!~, _
,- ~
r
4 ~ ~
2by§. ~~ .~ ~F ja,~~5.' Y~ ..
x.t,:~ ":fir ~ 4 a;~_~
k ~`~"~' ~ r : -~-n~ rev.
r i -s
i .~~EdG~u6~ ~F~ r :s'.-.
j __ a ~~ ~a `_~
.Y' _
~ s ----_- '~~-
- s' . ;.
ate" era's the~lowly toilet. And there's
' '~ Two Forks. Seemingly unrelated,-
r ~ i but really just different sides of the
P __ 4~same supply~emand equation. The low-
f r = Bosh toilet can help save us from the dam,
1.: ~ -say environmentalists, arguing that it's
L:.~ ~ ' cheaper to lower demandthan to increase
~~ supply. No way, say dam proponents. .
~ : ~- We need both the dam and water
::.efficiency. •:,. ....:.,:- yi, ..
1• But where are wewith Two Forks-
that dam and reservoir project planned
for the South Platte River, about ZS miles
'',, upstream from Denver. What's the pro-
`.; gnosis since Gov. Roy_ Romer's June 10
`: decision? °.
"We'll probably have permits issued by
the end of the year," says Ed Ruetz,
- manager of community affairs for the
.Denver Water Department. The two ma-
' jor permits needed are a dredge and fill
permit by the U.S. Army Corps of
.'Engineers and a U.S. Forest Service per-
- coil allowing use of federal land.
_ However, there's a long haul between
' - ~ getting the permits and starting and com-
plating the project, says Bob McWhinnie,
chief executive officer of the Metropolitan
Water Providers, proponents of the pro,
_ ': jest along with the Denver Water Board.
' McWhinnie says the Environmental
Defense Fund has already administrative-
Iy challenged the state issuance of a water
quality permit for Two Forks and con-
'° _ timed litigation is likely. ".
As for the Forest Service and Corps
permits, McWhinnie says, 'The record in
- ~ . the EIS (Environmental Impact State-
,. _ ~<;- ment) suggests that they will give us-the
' ~ ;< petartits,".(.The EIS•was completed by the
. 8. Oct 14, ;988• Creek -
4 ".. ....
Omaha office of the Corps along with the
Forest Service and Bureau of .Land
;.Management.) But, says McWhinnie, the
permits -may require .'such restrictive
'preconditions for mitigating negative im-
pacts of the dam "that we would just say
no thank you, we just don't choose to go
forward." ~ : ,-
However, assuming the permits are ac-
ceptable to the water providers,'it is like-
ly that environmentalists will challenge
them administratively and then in the
courts. 'Similar lawsuits have taken three
to five years;" says McWhinnie. He
guesses legal challenges to Two Forks will
last around two to three years unless a
third party steps in who is able to arrange
a quick settlement.
...Even without lawsuits, Two Forks will
not be on "line until the year 2000.
Between now and then, says McWhinnie,
-water conservation efforts and interim
water supplies will be needed to fill a pro-
jelled gap of 100,000 acre-feet. (One acre-
foot equals one acre of water one foot
deep, or 325,600 gallons.) ,, ~r-: _,-
So damproponents concede- that
substantial conservation is needed, but
they say it's needed to get us to 2000=not
as a substitution for the dani. The Denver
Water Departement's Ruetz says water
conservation has never been considered
as a substitute. "We've never looked at
either Two Forks or conservation. We
need both:'
That may be true of the Denver Water
Department, but environmental groups
contend that water efficiency is a prac-
tical, -ess expensive alternative to Two
• ° ~a
~~ ~~ ~ °(post 1979) toilets; the toIlet attain
.'new feveI of respectability: °Con
i. :.~. r ~ "-;vahvely esttatated,.: effiaextt toilets
~
toilet water use,
-save 70 percent _oE
• ~ T -.4F
-a'
~' ye ('
29,500 aa~feet ar if metro Den
•
• converted all toiletsf; - according
Western Colorado PerspecEives on Be
•j/;~ " '~ +~t~: ~
~
~ r
~
~ {Hater Management in Colorado.: i.o
' '
~
' ` ••' ~;' `
s • + " ing at the total Two Forks project cos
~
.}~ •• i .~: a billion'. dollar;, -and a"'capacity
•
~"• ~' ~~
;.~
x J
; 100 000 acre feet a year, that toilet s
i•
.
ings works out to nearly a third of
''y
total protected Two Forks supply ar
i : ~r~ ,,F ~j`. ,~.•, ,"s pro rata savings of $Z95 million .';
-
~? '~ "`"- J• lot of "money being fhis'
That's a
down"flte commode, and jurisdicti
~.~ ~ ~'
N
'~
~ throaghout_the U.S. are beginning
• i ~4 •
'
/ -
r recognize the toilet-efficiency soluti
a'
~ ', }i) ~ f ;f,=i e ~ ° 'The lowly toilet comes into its ow
f• s. ~ * ^ ;;~~
~ says Wendy Korpening, a plumbing
`
r S ~
.~ - ~ ,.• dustry consultant in California. KorF
~
_ _
"` ~ -
•~ J. r y ,ty+~+ ing says the toilet industry is in them:
of a revolution. Over the last 10 ye:
:she estimates that a mars 150,000.t
~` `•"" y
~ ~ toilets were sold in the country, but n
Forks. Rocky Mountain Institute, an there's a demand for 100 000 of them e
energy and water efficiency organization month in Los Angeles alorte:"
~
in Snowmass, cites those cost savings. A Los Angeles orduumce
charige
The project is expected to produce plemented July 1 'and ha_
100,000 acre- feet a year and. cost $1 Massachusetts ptumbuig code effer
billion, including $550 million for the Mazch 1, 1989, are at the cuttutg edge
-dam, $85 million for a water treatment the toilet revolution.: $oth."I,.ll.'=
plant and $390 million for a wastewater :Massachusetts are requiring netN .
treatment plant. Yet says RMI, "improv- 'retrofit toilets.-(changed foilets due
ing the use of Denver's indoor domestic remodeling etc.) be 1.6 gallons
water use could save 52,000 acre-feet per. The primary motivation for the it
year, more, than :half of Two Forks' ' .has been to save on wastewater tteata
capacity. Inexpensive efficiency gains in ` faa1ities rather than oa water supr~e7;
outdoor water use conld bring total sav- se. Some treatment fao7ities are at'caF
ings close to "120,000 acre-feet per yeaz ty, and some are dumping raw sewa~,
=20 percent more than Two Forks capon 3o waterways like Boston Harbors
ty ° ~-~; ~~;- a , :"~ -= Ktirpening stresses ,thatN
'.Indoor savings would occur by install- developed and homebuilders are~ie
ing `water-efficient toilets, faucets and ~ Wing to support the trend in order to~
showerheads. Outdoor savings would be 'come building moratoriums in> r
realized through residential conservation where treatment facilities are at cape
programs .such .'as water-efficient and to overrnme building restrictions
landscaping ' " ~ `° -n'~''~' x `~• posed because of poor soil percolat
,' =The idea of water conservation im ~ ;; Tlie Denver Water Department
' mediately raises the hackles of those who joined the bandwagon as well, althc
tike to take long showers, etC.;:It's-the modestly.. The DWD currently is dill'
distaste for. self-sacrifice that leads ing ULF toilets in its lobby at 16001
' `McWhinnie to note, "Unless you have a 12th Avenue. The DWD says thdto
crisis, no one in the U.S. has proven that -will save about 14,000 gallons a year
you can make much of a difference (with :home over the five-gallon toilet, wl"u
conservation):' ,',: ~ =. used in about 85 percent o!~
But some environmentalists recognizes households served by DWD. y~
that. '1n the past, 'water conservation' got In addition to the toilet display
a bad name because it often meant half- DWD has instituted a voluntary m•
`" flushed toilets, brown lawns and wimpy ing program to convert the DWD's 7C
showers," says the RMI Water Savei s flat-rate customers (out of 190,000
Handbook. _ ~,~; .TM ~ ~ ~-_' ~ : _.
'This report considers no device gtetered service. Denver uses about
gallants per person per day compare
which significantly reduces service quali- Atutna's 150 gallons per person per
-_ i' -'
.
_
:ys McYVhinnie, "primarily because of
do of meters." :. _~ . - _ -.
Denver has also instituted a 'xeriscap-
g' program to encourage developers to
;e drought-resistant landscaping and
so has an educational program to
duce outdoor watering. -
Nevertheless, says Gene Reetz of the
nvironmental Protection Agency, the
'WD conservation program is "relative-
• small compared to other programs"
~d more could be done. In fact, he says,
,ore will be done, because the Corps
vii) impose water conservation as acon-
ltion of the (Two Forks) permit'" },.•
,~- x,
cWhinnie antidpates conserva-
~ lion stipulations as weB, in light
~of Gov. Romefs June 10 ded-
on which made permit approval con-
ngent on three items: a conservation
!an to show savings of 42,000 acre-feet
~ year; a showing of interim water
~un-es of 60,000 aa~feet per year and
aablishment of a ntetropolitan water
lthority. R~ , _,
McWhiiuue says water providers are
~orking on the first two requests. But
iey have no control over the establish-
~ent of as :authority, which is pro-
lematic. 7a the best of my knowledge,
~e}~re not e9ar close (to forming such an
,rthority);""'says McWhinnie. Never-
leless, he believes Two Forks will pro-
ved without rt- "`~~ a Gi ~; i
- - - ~.
`We've never
.,:._ :._
ooked~ at either 4 "~
i'u~o Forks or con
ervation. We need
Meanwhile; •. Cindy Parmenter,
~okesperson for Gov. Romer, says the
wemor "has had people working on"
~nservation issues related to Two Forks,
~metime in the future, says Parmenter,
:ere;"might be a press conference poin-
ng.out what people might do (to con-
Although the governor'has~no veto
ewer over ~ a_ Corps permit. decision,
ater .providers are working towazd a
~nseivation plan of 42,000 sae feet per
zarx.as requested by the governor. That
wre~originated in the Corps EIS plan,
~ iE is not unlikely that such a conserva=
~n figure will bee requurd as a condition
the peraut. t ~y;£ _ ~. .:.
Water providers are developing a'con-
rvationplan preferable to the IIS "pro-
-am . 4" _ conservation plan, says
:cWhinnie. "Comments in the Final EIS
id by Corps personnel strongly indicate
e Corps intends to require 'program 4'
ensures be implemented as a permit con-
tion;'says DWD issue paper NO. 2.
ie water providers' plan will vary from
e "program 4" plan mainly in allowing
dividual dties to offer alternative water
vings to those planned from limited lot
'es in "program 4." ~?~ =;n , r~e.-.'
McWhinnie acknowledges that conser-
lion is needed and believes the gover-
~t dted it as-,a prerequisite for two
asons: The public has a perception that
° need conservation and that it's the
ut costly way to stretch the water supp-
r}
ly; conservation will be necessary to get
to the yeaz 2000 when Two Forks is ex-
pected to become operational -
Thepublic's perception of conservation
as a less expensive alternative is, of
course, enhanced by efficiency studies
such as those by RMI.I2MI concludes that
retrofitting Denver homes with water-
efficient toilets, showerheads and faucets
"would save water at a gross one-time
cost of $6,400 per annual acre-foot-weB
under Two Forks' price tag of $10,200 per
annual sae-foot, The energy alone saved
by efficient faucets_ and showerheads
would amount to a one-time benefit of
more than $500 per household, $40 more
than the per household cost of the retrofit
program."
McWhinnie remains unconvinced.
"Let's not count on things you realty can't
prove," he says. McWhinnie is even
cautious about the ULF toilet; claiming
builders in metro Denver have en-
countered problems with the 3.5 gallon
Eoilet getting waste to the main sewer line
~en the slope of the pipe from the home
was inadequate.
Consequently, the water providers'
draft plan will call for a ULF toilet only
in new homes and in retrofit cases only
where a sewer line would not have to be
replaced. It will not mandate a retrofit-
ting in all homes, as has been suggested
by RMI. Nevertheless, MclNhinnie pro-
raises "the most aggressive (conservation)
program of anywhere in the U.S."
Meanwhile, concerning the projected
litigation, McWhinnie says it's certainly
possible it could kill the project. 'Ihe onus
is on us. We have to win at every turn.'
But, he warns, "lf Two Forks comes
apart, we've got a real mess in the metro
area." Denver, Aurora, Arvada,
Highlands Ranch, and, to a lesser extent,
Thornton, Westminster and Broomfield
are all right through the late 1990s, he
says. 'The rest of them (most notably Lit-
leton, Lakewood, Wheat Ridge and unin
corporated Jefferson and Arapahoe
Counties) are immediately in a crisis."
Environmentalists beg to differ and
hope that while their lawsuits buy time,
their arguments will be strengthened.
Wendy Korpening, no doubt, hopes
Denver residents will one day over-
whelmingly adopt her motto: "Flushed
. With Pride." ^
f
i
`3
l
e
~ ~.`